I think they'll inevitably pass a SOPA style bill that piggy backs on child porn. People still channel their hatred of the 1% at record companies and will sometimes champion freedom over record companies, but when it's pushed through congress under the guise of stopping child porn that'll be the end of it. The Bill O'Reilly's of the world won't understand how anyone could be against a bill aimed at stopping child porn.
That's how I see it to. Eventually they'll direct it at that and nobody will want to speak out against for fear of looking like they're supporting child porn. Or in the UK, they'll just do it for the sake of regulation apparently.
There was no word 'marriage'. This was a word created by Religion to describe two of their followers co-joining in the name of their said religion/deity. It was defined and recognised this was a MAN & a WOMAN.
To me this is the issue, it's a religious term, that essentially was created by religion, therefore do have 'ownership' over it (for a lack of a better word).
"Marriage" is about joining things. Like, for example, you could talk about the "marriage" of horse and buggy, or the "marriage" of slow motion and instant replay. It also talks about a long term bond. For instance just the other day I used the phrase "I'm not married to the idea" - meaning I am not permanently inseparable from this idea.
The problem, as with all things religious, is that marriage
is also a religious term with religious implications. And religious people hate it when you try to use the secular definition of a religious term. For example, try telling a religious (Christian) person that Christmas is about Santa Clause. They'll have none of it. Even though the origins of the term Christmas are religious, it has developed a secular meaning, much like the term "marriage" originated secularly and developed a religious meaning.
I have begun referring to Christmas as Santamas to avoid confusion between religious and secular definitions. In the case of marriage, I would suggest that religious people do the same - develop a religious term to avoid confusion with secular definitions of marriage. They could call it a Christunion, for example.
Another problem with the whole gay marriage thing is the legal definition of marriage. I see no reason why the state should recognize the legal contract that is marriage only when declared under religious institutions. And indeed in the US the state does not require religious recognition. It is, of course, a violation of the constitution guarantee of equal protection (again in the US) to allow contracts only to arbitrarily defined groups like "man and woman". This legal requirement was born out of the religious institution of marriage and has no place in a government that observes human rights like equal protection.
