Let's clear this up: redefining marriage

In light of the Rick Warren of the mega-church empire in California to give the invocation for Obama, I want to clear up this ridiculous idea of his that is running wild. Warren is quoted as saying: "There is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2% of our population."

Let's deconstruct this:

There is no reason to change: The reason is to stop the cycle of abuse caused by deeming a minority born into every demographic of the country as inferior or unwanted.

the universal: How many things are universal? How arrogant and incorrect to state that marriage is universally understood and measured. Divorce, polygamy, child-brides, etc... there are many ideas out there. We can debate the merits from there, but let's not get confused.

historical: Many cultures have had homosexuality as an accepted part of their society at some point in their history. Most marriages have historically been a matter of contract involving women as property, including the right to multiple wives. And most of the history referenced is western or Biblical, where polygamy features prominently, countering the universalism idea.

definition of marriage: Marriage is not a definition, it is an action, a verb. To play semantics though, sure... marriage has had definitions. Those definitions have been used to say that women do not need the right to vote since their husbands could do it for them, to say that men could beat their wives but only with a stick no wider than their thumb, to say that slaves could not marry each other till death, just until sale. Definitions tend to improve over time though, like including love, equality of gender and race and class. Hetero-centric marriage will soon go the way of dowries and match makers of children.

to appease: How very, very insulting! Appease infers a level of condescension and disrespect that shows how victimized the modern church feels. I'm not sure if this new role of playing the wounded majority comes from embarrassment, guilt or fear.

2% of our population: That is a strange number to put up. 1 in 10 people are gay, many more than that are bisexual to some degree, many more are allies and many more are supportive. So the number is closer to 48% in his home state of CA and as of this week, 53% in CT. And marriage equality is not just affecting gays, with ripples to human rights globally, mostly women. Including women, gays and minorities in general, I'd say his 2% figure is not just inaccurate, but negligently ignorant for a bold statement from such a large figure.

It is sad to think that a man who is the face of the modern church will not be remembered for his good work, but for his hate-mongering. Hate is a strong word, but that is what is created... intentionally or not. Obama, I'm sad you chose this as the religious face of change. He is nothing of the sort.