But that is not to say that a "belief system" is necessarily a "religion." And therein lies the rub....
You wrote:
As far as the issue of “Gay” marriage is concerned; I know of no other word, besides “marriage,” where its meaning is mandated by Law and the Courts (a considerable departure from the customary “evolution” of a word).This is exactly what troubles me. Why on earth do we need to have official court definitions of what "religion" or "marriage" is?
Though at least one federal appeals court has found that atheism is a "religion" and thus is fully protected on "free exercise" and "equal protection" grounds, SCOTUS has not yet weighed in on this thorny question.
SCOTUS will get the gay marriage question first. God only knows what they will do with it; their decision is forthcoming, by the end of June.
What bothers me about all this is, give a problem to courts and lawyers, then all of the sudden the "clarity of definition" of the relevant terms becomes paramount. Actual human experience dating back in millennia of human history, and all common-sense knowledge of such matters derived therefrom, is totally eclipsed in this process.
"Marriage" heretofore has universally been understood by We the People and the countless generations that came before us, as the word attached to the concept of a union of a man and a woman for the purpose of bearing, protecting, and nurturing their offspring. As such, so-called "romantic love" isn't even mentioned, let alone considered fundamental to the marital relation. Perhaps we might say that "marriage" is the legacy of biologically-neccesitated male–female bonding, for the benefit of progeny.
But the legitimacy of "Gay" marriage is entirely based on the idea of "romantic love." To confirm this idea would constitute the complete redefinition, if not outright inversion, of the common understanding of what marriage is at its very essence.
Likewise the problem of the definition of "religion." Again, courts and lawyers are always interested in the precise definition of things — usually in ways that tend to denigrate actual human historical experience.
"Religion" has been in this world ever since Man arrived. Man has ever so much more experience with this, going back millennia, than SCOTUS does. On the universal report of mankind, "Religion" pertains to a realm "not of this world," a spiritual, metaphysical realm wherein God and soul are reconciled in eternity....
But as already noted elsewhere, if atheism is absolutely committed to the denial of God and soul both, then in what way can it be said that anything the atheists are doing has anything to do with "Religion?"
See what I mean about the significance of definitions???
I think it is improper in principle for secular courts to be deciding such matters of such profound consequence to American society.
Certainly Congress is prohibited by the First Amendment from acting in such "definitional" spheres. Article II Executive powers do not seem to include any such grant. The Article III courts have not been granted any such power either; their role "extends to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution" — but it seems the Constitution does not grant what we have called these "definitional powers" at all, to any branch of the federal government, in the first place.
Just some thoughts. Oh, we do live in such interesting times, my dear brother in Christ! Thank you so much for writing!
And that, Dear Sister, is why the courts are so focused on definitions...a cynic would say they're focused on "their" authority to make definitions. That is heard in the consternation of Kennedy when he observed that the definition of marriage has been man/woman for millennia. He knew they would be bucking a bit of a trend in the definition of marriage were the Court to go with a definition that is about a decade old in their discarding of one that is millennia old. The concern might have been more "How do we sell this novel definition?" rather than "Is this homosexual marriage within our authority to force upon the nation?"
Since marriage is no place mentioned in the Constitution but the power of the People and the power of States is specifically placed over everything not mentioned in the Constitution, then Kennedy was searching for a definition to fit into his bailiwick of 'dignity', the word he has used to justify other excursions into heretofore unknown rights. He seems to think the Constitution grants a "right TO social dignity". (He is wrong, of course. Dignity, like reputation, is earned.)
Kennedy is left with declaring marriage to be about 'romantic love', if he goes down his 'dignity' pathway again. And just about every culture from the inception of time that saw value in arranged marriages will laugh at him. Every culture that valued natural law will laugh at him. Every Judeo-Christian nation in history will laugh at him.
And in the end, God will laugh at him.
You should be troubled.
“Why on earth do we need to have official court definitions of what “religion” or “marriage” is?”
Because it involves Liberal doctrine. Like many a religious doctrine, past and present, any Liberal doctrine not universally accepted voluntarily, must then be enforced by Law and the Courts. No deviation will be tolerated.
Expect a very large increase in the restraint of human activity that will be imposed on us all as Liberal influence and power expands. What has gone before are simply the opening salvos.
Thanks, boop, for including me in the conversation. Likewise to your many other participants. Very illuminating and much appreciated.