All Abrahamic religions believe that they are right, and that the others are wrong, so, what I said still counts

Did you read my A vs. B scenario about the definition of marriage as it regards to being a religious concept or a state granted contract?

Government CAN NOT and SHOULD NOT have a legal opinion on what [a] church decrees. It is a violation of the US's Free Exercise Clause. (Having Under God is also a violation of the US's free exercise clause as it applies only to Yahweh based religions. It also wasn't there to begin with until 1953.)

So my original statement applies: marriage is a religious ceremony, which the state should take no interest in, and can show no favoritism in, OR marriage is a state sanctioned contract that the church can have no input in defining.

And to prevent you from using the 'slippery slope argument' Consider this.

You cannot make contracts with Minors (including things that have nothing to do with marriage like concepts, like buying cars.)
You cannot make contracts with Animals.

In the past, Christians HAVE opposed divorce. This is why Henry the 8th beheaded his wife. The Church's word was law back then.

What?

Henry VIII had 6 wives over his lifetime: "Divorced, beheaded, died; divorced, beheaded, survived." He successfully obtained an annulment in his first marriage to Catherine of Aragon, but not before Catherine gave birth to a daughter, Mary. Anne Boleyn had her head cut off -- she was said to have been having an affair, and was therefore convicted of High Treason -- but not before giving birth to a daughter, Elizabeth. She was probably not guilty, but had failed to produce a son, as after Elizabeth there were 3 miscarriages, and Henry's eye was turning elsewhere. His third wife was Jane Seymour, who died of natural causes. It was from complications of chilbirth when her son Edward was born. His fourth wife was Anne of Cleves, who did nothing wrong other than being unappealing when he finally met her in person. He obtained an annulment against her too, but she remained loyal to him the rest of her life and he treated her as an honored sister. His fifth wife was Catherine Howard, who was a flirtatious young thing. The King was almost as infuriated to discover she had been engaged to someone else before she got engaged to him, as he was to find she'd cheated on him after their marriage too. She ended up losing her head. His sixth wife, Catherine Parr, took care of him as his health declined and survived him.

Jane Seymour's son Edward became King Edward VI and died at age 15 having reigned 6 years. Catherine of Aragon's daughter became Queen Mary I, "Bloody Mary", who made a lot of Protestant martyrs trying to return England to Catholicism. Anne Boleyn's daughter Elizabeth became Queen Elizabeth I, who made a rather good job of it. But by then, the Church's word was the same as the King's word. Henry had split from Rome when the Pope denied him an annulment against Catherine of Aragon. At that point, he was the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and if he wanted an annulment he got an annulment.

You're right that this was technically not the same as a divorce, but the point is that the Church had nothing to do with the reason the two executed ex-wives lost their heads.

In fact the only reason it's call marriage is to favor Christian tradition.

That's not true. Marriage is marriage the world over, Christian or not. It's a near-universal human custom. HOWEVER, you're correct that its basic form is a contract, and there's no good rational non-religious reason to limit which two people might be allowed to enter into a contract.

It's useless to talk about this as purely theoretical, because there are countries in Europe where the ONLY legal marriage is a civil marriage. (Denmark, for instance.) If you need a sacramental marriage for religious reasons, you go get one after the civil marriage has been concluded. The creation of the legal marital unit is strictly a state matter. You have only to look at those countries to see that such a system works.

Abrahamic Religion favored Polyandry. This is still true of Islam.
Abrahamic Religion considered women and children to be considered property. This is still true of Islam.
Marriage was considered a business arrangement to strengthen power.

You mean polygyny, not polyandry, also Islam doesn't favor it, but rather allows it when certain conditions are met (and it makes a bit of sense in agrarian societies to maximize offspring) . Where are women and children defined as just property?

Reading is good for you - unfounded assertions are not.
---
Early Judaism
In traditional Judaism, women are for the most part seen as separate but equal. Women's obligations and responsibilities are different from men's, but no less important (in fact, in some ways, women's responsibilities are considered more important, as we shall see).

Early Christianity
Another way in which the early Church departed from Greco-Roman beliefs was in regard to its beliefs about the moral capacity of women. The pervasive Greco-Roman view that women were intellectually and morally incompetent profoundly affected their treatment under the law and ultimately resulted in a moral double standard by which women were judged harshly for crimes that were not even considered offenses when committed by men.

Early Islam
Some distinguished women converted to Islam prior to their husbands, a demonstration of Islam's recognition of their capacity for independent action. Caliph Umar appointed women to serve as officials in the market of Medina. Biographies of distinguished women, especially in Muhammad's household, show that women behaved relatively autonomously in early Islam. In Sufi circles, women were recognized as teachers, adherents, “spiritual mothers,” and even inheritors of the spiritual secrets of their fathers.