Same sex marriage is in the news. I seldom write about marriage because, to be honest, I’m not very good at it. Of course, those who have failed or even some who have never been married may still choose to lecture couples who are enjoying successful relationships.
Traditional Marriage. Biblical Marriage. Holy. A man and a woman, and her maid, and another woman (perhaps the sister of the first woman), and her maid, and maybe another woman or two. You know, MARRIAGE.
Personally, I am sick of the hypocrisy. I’m tired and bored with the conversation. There are two distinctly different, sometimes competing, components to marriage. One part is spiritual. The other part of marriage is legal, i.e. property rights, taxes, and responsibility.
Churches, synagogues, mosques, etc… control and define the spiritual meaning of marriage. Each religion has the right to decide whether the couple getting married meets the criteria of the faith. The Catholic Church gets to determine whether the union of a Catholic and a Jew, a Catholic and a Methodist, or even two civilly divorced Catholics should be recognized by the Church. My friend the Orthodox Rabbi is in no rush to preside at the wedding of a Jewish guy to a Christian girl. And there are still churches in this country where a mixed race couple might not be welcome.
But all of those couple may choose to be legally married. The tax deduction for married couples, the ability to pass along assets to a surviving spouse, or even the right to visit a loved one in the hospital should not be decided by Sharia Law, the Pope, or even a local Rabbi.
By the way, my friend the Rabbi is adamantly anti-pork. Never had it. Never will. Pork is specifically forbidden in the Bible. But he doesn’t want to make pork illegal. He sincerely hopes that his non-Jewish friends enjoy their ham sandwiches. He is far more concerned about those who would use religion, selectively enforced, as a weapon.
Is George Zimmerman guilty of second degree murder? Is he guilty of manslaughter? I have an opinion. So do you. But, just for a moment, let’s jump forward.
Let’s suppose that the jury decides that Trayvon Martin had George Zimmerman pinned on his back. And we will even suppose that Trayvon some how noticed George’s gun, the gun in the special concealed weapon holster. The holster that sat below his waistband and kept the gun “concealed” in the small of his back. But Trayvon still saw the gun and reached for it. Yes, we will assume, for a moment, that the jury acquits George Zimmerman of all charges and sets him free.
What’s next? George Zimmerman, wannabe cop, licensed to carry a concealed weapon, returns to the neighborhood watch. How safe do you feel?