Same-sex marriage by judicial fiat

"I mean really, since when has any group given up the card that brings them power?"

Just ask the people constantly playing the victim card that their relgious liberty is threatened by same-sex marriage. Or those who use the victim card by bringing up beastility and incest when talking about same-sex relationships. There are victms and martyrs everywhere, as this thread points out.

"Orwellian." You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
It's not a word to be tossed around lightly, Max. And I agree, neither is marriage. You can disagree all you want with my and others' interest in changing its meaning, but it's silly to call our opinions "Orwellian" simply because we don't agree with you.

It looks as if Max has Repeating Himself Attraction Disorder (RHAD). Not that there's anything wrong with that. We all have a touch of it, thanks to Satan's minions at beliefnet. They have much to answer for. And there's no guarantee that you'll see this at all . . . or that you won't see it six times in a row. I blame myself entirely for my apparently indefatigable determination to defeat them and post a comment. I wouldn't want Rod to bear the responsibility for that. I imagine he's already tearing his hair sufficiently.

Insane Kitten, bring on those crackers! We'll be the toast of Hell! ; )

Erin, your monster list makes me rub my hands together and cackle with glee. At last! Something to get my teeth into! But before I tackle it--if beliefnet will allow that--let me deal separately with this:

Because marriage *is* a religious notion, as it is currently constructed. Even ancient pagan societies ordered their ideas about marriage based on their religions. There has never been a truly atheist/agnostic understanding of marriage; there has never been a workable secular definition that was completely divorced from earlier religious notions.

This statement lacks historical and anthropological perspective to such an extent that I'm not sure where to begin. First, I would request you to recognize the distinction between ideas of the sacred and "religious" dictates, which to you appear to mean rulings handed down by an organized hierarchy with a codified body of doctrines believed to have been granted via divine revelation. Most societies treat certain events and situations as "sacred", but this is not at all the same thing as "a religion." Many societies don't have what you would think of as a religion, yet people still manage to get married. Marriage and religion are both expressions of culture, but one does not create the other. Animals form pair-bonds and relationships, which often endure for life. Humans were getting together for mutual support and to raise young long before formal religion ever existed.

Marriage was contracted by mutual consent and did not require the presence of a priest until after the Council of Trent. Luther and Calvin did not consider it a sacrament. So, heck yes, there have been secular ideas of marriage. Traditional marriage was concerned with transfer of property and practical obligations related to material goods and to the value of the labor of a woman and her potential offspring. Because property is important, these transactions were dignified and legitimated by references to sacred traditions. For most of history, it had nothing to do with mysticism.

If we're going to talk about marriage in terms of history and culture, let's try to do so with as much accuracy as possible. Probably none of us rank as experts, but let's try to do more than bandy unsupported assertions.