How many more functions can she sleep through?

Public opinion is changing, but it didn't just magically change for no reason. It is changing because people pushed the issue.

Agree there is risk with this SCOTUS, but there is always risk.

But if Adam and Eve were not real persons, we are simply making up a story to explain something about man's state of affairs. That does serve a purpose, and is very common in the Tanakh, but a made-up origin story cannot be relied upon as firm ground for logically (or metaphysically) sound extrapolation. If it's not history, it's what we decide we want to believe, no? "It would explain so much" doesn't make it true or factual. I can make up many other stories which would fit just as beautifully.

As for forgiveness, it's difficult to go too far into the matter without dealing in anecdotes, case by case. So many factors are involved in judging healthy relationships. But while I agree with you (and your minister) on the abusive relationship front, I would say that release of toxic emotions is not forgiveness, it's just letting go and moving on. A victim can be free of grudges and not cling to pain without letting the wrongdoer off the hook for what was done, repentance or no repentance.

And I just deleted a paragraph of boundary anecdotes. Sorry to continue; religion is a favorite topic of mine, and religious discussions don't get resolved, only interrupted. :-) But I do recommend taking a look at Montanism.

It's not as if there's only so much marriage to go around and if we let them have some there won't be enough for the rest of us.

(The "oh, it would totally be different this time, totally," argument will not suffice.)

Why it's any different, legally, from interracial marriage, I don't know. But I wonder about the role of public opinion in lawmaking generally. Interracial marriage became legal in 1967, but more than a decade later, it still had a 38% approval rating among the populace — and yet the Supremes did the right thing, long before it became popular. There was reason. And the same reason applies here. So why haven't we seen the Supremes do the right thing? Are they waiting for Scalia to stroke out?

The Rev. Jerry Falwell, back in the late 50s, argued that prohibiting segregation would lead to miscegenation, and therefore the watering down of the white race. Can't have THAT, now, can we? It's the same song we hear now about gay marriage Destroying the Sanctity of the Family.

[And to pip Santorum, why shouldn't polygamy be legal? It would require attention to inheritance laws, another state-to-state fiasco, as well as insurance and other administrative details, but I can't see a reason not to allow it.]

Ultimately, my hope is that religion-based elements of law be weeded out. I don't care if the almighty Founders worshiped a glow-in-the-dark pepper pot; modern law should not be based on any religious tenets.

Of course, there's always hoping Thomas and Scalia get hit by a bus.