The marriage-equality-vs.-religious-freedom (or, Teh-Gayz-vs.-religious-freedom) argument is probably the best illustration. Here, so-called self-identified "Christians" proclaim that their "religious" "liberty," their "beliefs," their "faith," even "Christianity" itself, are "under attack" because (a.) same-sex marriage is increasingly being recognized by the courts and the public as a civil right; (b.) they've failed and can't do anything to stop it; and (c.) they can't retaliate, i.e., they can't exempt or insulate themselves legislatively from the risk of civil liability for failing or refusing to treat gay people fairly and decently in the commercial marketplace.

Of course, all that is bunk, as I've written at length, and with intensity, many times before. Previously, I've described marriage exclusivity, specifically the "religious" / "Christian" argument in support thereof, as a form of thought control, one in which neither the state nor anyone else should really be trying to engage. "Freedom" means, in large part, that there are some things we leave up to the individual, not the state; things like whether, when, who, how, and why to marry. Keeping civil marriage exclusive to opposite-sex couples for the sole purpose of controlling what and how people think and feel about marriage, family, children, relationships, &c., is an wholly inappropriate exercise of state power.

A couple of things have occurred to me recently in arguing this issue with exclusivist holdouts, particularly those of the "religious" / "Christian" variety. Many of them tend to focus on the "definition of marriage," which I've always felt was a red herring meant to distract people from the pertinent civil-rights questions. In the end, our Constitution requires the states to recognize, preserve and maintain the civil rights of their citizens, not the "definitions" of words, let alone the "Biblical" meaning or understanding of anything. Where the latter interferes with the former, the former must always prevail absent a compelling justification for the latter, which in this case there simply is none.

But mainly, the "religious liberty" that these folks feel is "under attack" and being "taken away" from them by the emergence of same-sex marriage rights is not "liberty" at all, but power. Obviously, no "Christian" can identify anything that (s)he is no longer free to do, say, think or believe now that Thelma and Louise can get married down at the City Hall. Most people understand that "religious" "freedom" does not include or encompass having one's specific "beliefs" codified into law or imposed on anyone else, let alone a license to interfere with the civil rights of others. The law can allow what your religion prohibits, or prohibit what your religion allows, without infringing on religious liberty. It can even, in many cases, prohibit what your religion requires or require what your religion prohibits. And it is in no way obligated to allow what your religion allows, require what your religion requires, or prohibit what your religion prohibits.

No; what these "religious" "Christians" are actually losing is the power to tell everyone in America how to live. For 200-plus years they had that power; they had their "beliefs" codified into law without much question or debate. But in recent decades our laws and jurisprudence have found that "religious" "morality" -- or "moral disapproval" -- alone is not a sufficient reason, indeed it is categorically inadequate, to restrict the civil rights of other citizens, let alone whole classes thereof. Since the 14th Amendment was ratified the states have always been required to justify restrictions on civil rights; we now require an objective, practical justification, not merely a subjective, "moral" one.

When you've had that kind of power for that long, it's easy to conflate power with liberty. It can certainly be said that those with more power do have more freedom -- the reasoning and effects of the Citizens United decision being a prime example -- be it economic or political. Accordingly the loss of power feels like the loss of liberty, even though it's not. It also explains why some "Christians" feel and say that gay marriage is somehow being "imposed on" them; viz., they can no longer impose their "definition" on everyone else, hence a different "definition" must be imposed on them, by everyone else.

The reality is that nothing is being imposed on them. Nothing is happening to "Christians," nothing is happening to "traditional marriage," and nothing is happening to "religious liberty" as a result of the emergence of same-sex marriage rights ... EXCEPT that they no longer have the power over the institution of marriage, including its "definition," that they once had. They talk about the "right" and the "freedom" to determine What Marriage Is™ for all of society, but there is no such "right" and there is no such "freedom;" they want, and are losing, the power to make that determination. Barring that, they want the power -- not the "freedom" -- to defy civil laws and exempt themselves -- and only themselves -- from civil liability.

Why deliberately conflate and confuse liberty with power? That's a harder question to answer. Are they loathe to admit that they ever had that power to begin with? Do they think that makes them the villains in the grand scheme of things, when they would rather see themselves and be seen as the heroes? Do they want to be David and not Goliath? Why do people who have never been, and never will be, systematically persecuted derive so much emotional satisfaction from pretending that they are being systematically persecuted? I really don't know.

When you hear so-called self-identified "Christians" complain about how their "religious" "freedom" or "liberty" is being threatened or taken away, simply substitute the word "power" and you'll see what they mean. Only then will it make any sense at all.