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

SOCIALIZED MEDICINE < HUMANITY

I met someone recently who told me that while in Great Britain, her husband had a heart attack.  He was sent to the emergency room of a local hospital, and she was eventually summoned.  He sat in the hall of that hospital for three days straight with only minimal assistance.  When his wife arrived, she was livid.  How was it that a man who had experienced a heart attack was still sitting in a hallway waiting for a room?  The hospital had a 72 hour waiting period for heart patients.  She said that if they MADE IT through the 72 hours, then they got a bed. Now is this real, or puffery?  In these heated political times, who can say?  But there is no doubt SOME kernel of truth in it.  And even a tiny kernel is enough for me to say that I don't want government-run health care.  In my short blah blah years on this earth, I cannot think of one thing the government ran well.  Or efficiently.  I am not willing to put my health, my heart, my children's health on the line to appease
Read more

Absolutely UNKNOWN

Image
Right or wrong? Every set of laws on our planet is based on natural law. Natural law has several definitions, but in essence it is law that have been proved to be true again and again, not laws that are merely imposed by the will of another. Either its right, or wrong. On or off? Even in computing, everything reduces down to the simple definition of "on" or "off".   If a circuit is on, that's a 1.   If its off, 0.   That's why you see the 1 inside a 0 on almost every electronic on/off button.   The system of number counting that only has two digits is called BI-nary (bi meaning 2). So that's where the binary system comes from, and is the basis of all computing.  Black or white? We used to use the phrase "the answer is there in black and white."    These are the two juxtaposed extremes.  But in our increasingly pluralistic society, we have adopted that there are infinite "shades of gray."   While true in theory
Read more