Gotta love C+L. Looks like Pastor Rick Warren is falling into Daniel Patrick Moynihan's trap and making up his own facts:
"I'm not opposed to that as I am opposed to a redefinition of a 5000-year definition of marriage. I'm opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.
Q: Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?
Warren: Oh, I do. For 5000 years marriage has been defined by every single culture and every single religion...."
Defined as what?
Let's dig into some history below the fold:
5000 years and marraige has had a constant definition? I call Bull. Let's do a 5 minute fact check:
Let's try the case of one woman and more than one man. If we start here we notice really quick that Polyandry crops us in quite a few places, including Tiber, Africa, and historically there is a history of it being either culturally or legally acceptable in a number of places.
And the case of marraige being legal between one man and more than one woman is so common I'm just going to point and shrug. And it's not just historical, polygamy is a modern occurrence, and even has a history of being legal in the US well into this country's history!
So in 5 minutes we can spot a number of cultures and a number of religions, including christian ones, that accept or have accepted in the recent past, marraige that isn't just one man and one woman. And here are a couple even more variations and tweaks on marraige:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
So it looks like the only part of Warren's statement that is factually truthful is his opinions. Typical for conservatives of his type, his facts leave something to be desired.