Lots of depressing news on the pro-traditional marriage front lately, as judge after judge in state after state decides that only "bigotry" could prevent anybody declaring that two dudes or two dudettes are a "marriage." And after this heady piece of sterling judicial logic, the judges will, no doubt, for an encore decide that one's head and one's buttocks are exactly the same thing since both are body parts, and will insist that public restrooms install fixtures to accommodate those who excrete from their craniums, so as not to promote bigotry and discrimination (because these same judges have already demonstrated that they, personally, think with their...oh, never mind).
The problem is not that religious people have one definition of marriage and godless people have another. The problem is that secular law has been quite comfortable for a long time defining marriage as a contract that was specifically issued to a man and a woman. One of each. Who were exchanging certain rights and duties, which included the right and duty to engage in lawful sexual intercourse with each other (newsflash: there used to be unlawful kinds! Oh, wait, there still are) and to be responsible, together, for any children who might result from the contractual relationship (even if no children ever did).
What is marriage now?
Nobody knows. Nobody.
Oh, sure, there's some legal definition or other in pro-marriage-destruction states like Massachusetts. The problem is that those legal definitions don't make it clear why a marriage contract must necessarily exclude three or more people, incestuous relatives, NON-incestuous relatives, or even friends who aren't into each other sexually. There's no good reason that two heterosexual male college roommates in Massachusetts could not, right now, get "married" to each other in order to take advantage of "married" student housing and special financial aid packages and whatnot, stay "married" through their college years, and then "divorce" in order to marry women (with a nice tax break for the divorce, most likely!) once they graduate; in fact, it might be a smart financial strategy, and a way to take advantage of "diversity" scholarships and the like. Who could possibly object: gay couples, complaining that these two college guys were making a mockery of gay "marriage?" I can't even type that sentence without laughing.
There's no logical reason why marriages can't be among groups of three or more. There's no logical reason why marriages can't involve relatives, friends, and spinster great-aunts who just want to share health insurance benefits. Since marriage is no longer the union of a man and a woman ordered toward the promotion of the natural family, it can be anything.
Which makes it nothing.
The next step will be for single people to sue various state governments on the grounds that penalizing them in tax laws, inheritance laws, benefits calculations, etc. for their relationship status is just as bigoted and hateful as keeping two men or two women from calling themselves a "marriage." I fully expect the rallying cry "Marriage rights for the single!" to be raised once single people realize how badly they are being cheated to subsidize people who choose voluntarily to enter into a contract based on a putatively sex-centered romantic relationship which can be as temporary as the parties to it desire. And, to be honest, I support them. If civil marriage no longer has anything to do with promoting and supporting the natural family, then to hell with it.