It certainly has all the most unattractive characteristics of a “religion”; a rabid following of “True-Believers,” Hell-bent on destroying anyone who might disagree with any particular ~ an insistence on strict adherence to the prescribed Liberal doctrine ~ etc.
As with all other “religions,” it is a belief system
A District Court has found Atheism to be a religion. I don’t know that the issue has gone any further than that.
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).
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!