A Legal Definition of Marriage?

What a hot button topic. Let me make clear off the top - I have no problems with homosexual "marriage". A gay couple whom I consider to be among my closest friends have been together over 40 years! They are "married" now under the US Supreme Court ruling. I love them and am so happy for them.

Then am I anti-marriage? Just the opposite, actually. 

I am however against the GOVERNMENT redefining the traditional definition of words in order to further a political agenda. The government has no business in redefining the traditional meaning of a religious institution. This impedes the free practice of religion. If you redefine a religious institution then force those who practice that religion to adopt the government re-definition, you impede religious practice. Call it CIVIL UNION. Call it BANANA. Come up with any name you want if the government wants to regulate such unions as it does for the adopted term "married". But don't try to redefine the religious institution.

The bottom line is the government wants to rope in as many people as it can to come to IT for permission to be married under their own religious practices, so that the government can tax you and regulate you. Why is it the government's business? Why does the government make you get a LICENSE from it for you to marry?

EXERCISE: Is it different if a growing number of people want Donald Trump recognized as a Christ? Should the US Supreme Court be able to rule that the term Christ should apply to anyone who claims themselves to be Christ, and thus my religion must recognize not only Jesus but Trump, or Biden, or whomever claims it to be the Christ? Outrageous, you may think. But if you think it through, there is no difference. I use Trump as the main example because he is such a polarizing figure. I acknowledge that no one has to my knowledge suggested such an outrageous thing.

But think about it. It's not that far off. 



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Future of the Saints

Image
LOVE ME SOME SAINTS. When I was a year and half out of law school, I got a call from a lady I helped in law school.  Her uncle needed a new lawyer for his defense cases.  Sure, send them over I said.  That's how I became a Benson attorney. I know a bit about Tom, and more about his brothers.  They are gone now, and I loved them both.  They were good friends.  I was blessed to sing at one of their funerals.  Tom was at best an acquaintance and tough client.  Even today when I see Tom I am never sure if he recognizes me.  Which reminds me of rule number one- Tom hates lawyers.  If you weren't Stanley Rosenburg, his long time friend and attorney, you were just another shark. I digress... Many pundits are talking about the future of Sean Peyton right now.  They postulate what Mickey Loomis wants, and Drew Brees wants.  All that really matters is what Tom Benson wants.  So I will use my small amount of personal knowledge of the Benson mindset, my knowledge of football
Read more

Slippery Slope in the Bathroom

We need to be cautious.  The current administration passed a new rule that people can use whatever sex's bathroom a person identifies with.  Well intentioned?  Likely.  Poorly thought out?  Yes.  Pandering?  ABSOLUTELY This isn't about transsexuals, people who in my humble opinion need more psychological help than physical.  Its intended to help those is transition to use the bathroom of the sex they wish they were.  In truth and in fact, it swings open the door to abuses by anyone. What if I am a good, but not great, athlete is school and I want to play varsity ball.  As a male, I may not get much playing time.  But if I unilaterally declared I felt I was a woman, I could set records on the women's team.  Is this fair to women?  NO.  Is opening their locker room to leering lying losers fair to women?  NO.  It is women who suffer from this ruling, and a federal court correctly stopped it. But that is not always the case with this Supreme Court.  They acknowledge, or
Read more