You mean there are actually laws concerning marriage?

Marriage license ... looks antiquated

I was reading an article the other day on the internet and discovered that there are many rules and laws in the United States concerning who you can and can't marry. Did you now that each of the states have rules about how old you have to be to get married? These rules differ by state, though. Most states require you to be 18 to get married but, you can marry at a younger age if you can get your parents to agree. In Massachusetts, you can get married as a 7th grader (12 years old) if your parents agree. I don't think you can marry your homeroom teacher though because that would violate a rule about teachers having "relations" with students.

Apparently there are also laws concerning marriage between family members that vary by state. No state lets you marry your brother or sister. Several states let you marry your first cousin and/ or your first cousin once removed (the state of Maine requires betrothed cousins to attend genetic testing and counseling so they will understand the risks of this kind of human inbreeding.) Contrary to common opinion (and lots of jokes), it's not primarily the southern states that allow these "family affairs." By the way, your first cousin once removed is the child of your first cousin as in my mother's brother's son's daughter. Second cousins? Fair game in all 50 states.

I read a post by someone named Liz who asks the question "why can't I marry my brother?" Now, I'm not the brightest bulb on the tree but, I think her post was written as satire. I don't think she really wants to marry her brother but, she makes some pretty good arguments about why it should be OK. She claims that both she and her brother are sterile so the possibility of ever reproducing does not exist because it isn't physically possible (but they could always adopt.) She claims that she is madly in love with him  (and not just in a sisterly way) and wants them to live as a married couple. She has a good job with health insurance...her brother is unemployed and has none. If they could get married, she could add him onto her healthcare plan. She obviously loves her brother very much and knows that many people find that kind of brother/sister love offensive and morally wrong but she doesn't see why someone else's moral beliefs should hinder her from enjoying all the marriage liberties that non-sibling marriages have. There must be thousands of other sibling couples out there (some say it could be 10-12% of the population...I think that's exaggerated) that would love to get married but those antiquated marriage laws are discriminatory. Years ago, they kept their feeling towards each other a secret from others because so many people would be offended or would think it was wrong. Haters.

Did you know that Brigham Young isn't just the name of a university? I should have realized that the school was named after an actual person. Brigham Young was a very famous Mormon who led his band of fellow Mormons out west to Utah to escape the religious persecution they experienced in places like Ohio. I know there is an HBO series about another marriage issue but I thought it was just a fictional, made for TV thing. Did you know that at one time, Mormons were in favor of having multiple wives and many actually did? I know from reading the Bible that others did this a long time ago. Solomon had lots of wives I think. In the United States, we have laws that prohibit having multiple spouses. Some Mormons secretly do have multiple wives and would love to be able to come out about it. I don't really understand why a guy would want more than one wife. Don't get me wrong, I love my wife very much but... good grief, the thought of having two of them? or more? Geesh!

Why is it against the law though to have more than one wife or husband? Has it always been this way? Who cares how many wives you have? I had a truck driver that worked for me many years ago who was rumored to have two wives in different cities and children from both wives. Since he was on the road most of the time I guess his "home" could be anywhere without anyone being suspicious. I guess as long as he is a good husband, father, and provider, some could argue that he is doing something pretty worthy. Why should we judge? Why all these rules?

Here are some other marriage rules:

Marriage by proxy. Four states allow a couple to be married by having a proxy stand in for the ceremony. If your groom-to-be is in the U.S. Armed Forces and can't be present for the ceremony, someone else can stand in for the marriage ceremony. In Montana, both the military bride and military groom can have stand-ins. That wedding photo album is probably a waste of money though.

In Kentucky a woman cannot marry the same man 4 times. You know.... marry Harlan, divorce Harlan, marry Harlan, divorce Harlan, marry Harlan, divorce Harlan.....marry Harlan again? Nope...go marry your cousin.

In South Carolina it is a crime for a man over the age of 16 to propose to a woman and not mean it. It is a misdemeanor under the Offenses Against Morality and Decency Act....and, it's downright mean anyway.

In New Orleans it is illegal for palm readers, fortune tellers and mystics to perform marriage ceremonies. Now, let's think about this one...wouldn't it make sense for people that know our futures to be the best judges of whether we should get married? And they wouldn't have to ask all those pesky questions..."do you promise to...? because wouldn't they already know the answer?

And, for heaven's sake, don't have a palm reader perform the ceremony while you marry your brother (for the 4th time) and your 11 year old first cousin at Chick fil-A. That would just be wrong (and probably against their corporate policy.)

Marriage...

If you don't like it...change it.

The U.S. Constitution. Ratified on March 4, 1789, it has been the supreme law of the land for over 223 years. By 1791, the first ten amendments (known as the Bill of Rights) had been ratified and the Constitution has been amended 17 more times since then. The 27th Amendment was passed in 1992. This somewhat unusual amendment, called the "Congressional Compensation Amendment of 1789"  was passed more than 200 years after it was first submitted. The Constitution allows for a process (read Article 5 of the Constitution) for changes to be made and 27 times it has been amended. Amending the Constitution does require clearing a pretty high hurdle. Passage by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress is required to propose an amendment and three-fourths of the States must approve it for the amendment to be ratified. It does not require the signature of the President. The Supreme Court does not need to be consulted in the matter. An alternate method is for two-thirds of the states' legislatures to call for a national convention to propose amendments however, this process has never been used.

There are many Americans (and likely many foreigners) that do not like certain provision of the Constitution. There is a process to change it, though. 33 total amendments have been proposed, with 27 having been ratified. The other six were never ratified by the states. Americans could amend the Constitution to change the requirements for amending the Constitution...but that amendment would require adherence to Article 5.

Congress passes laws that are supposed to be within the scope of what the Constitution allows. In response to lawsuits filed by many states' attorneys general, the Supreme Court recently reviewed and ruled on the constitutionality of certain aspects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also referred to as "Obamacare." Considered unpopular by many Americans, the Supreme Court ruled in a very controversial opinion written by the Chief Justice that the so-called individual mandate to purchase health insurance or pay a fine was constitutional by virtue of Congress' constitutional taxing authority.

Many conservatives believe that Justice Roberts was wrong in his vote which allowed the more liberal justices' vote to prevail 5-4. Justice Roberts said that he tried very hard to find a constitutional basis for Congress' law because he believes that overturning a law passed by both Houses of Congress, regardless of its unpopularity with a large number of citizens, is not something that the Supreme Court should do lightly. I happen to agree with that statement.

We can't have it both ways. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If Americans believe that it needs modification, then change it. It's not easy though. You need super-majorities in Congress and the States. If you don't like a law passed by Congress or you think we need a new law passed, you can tell your members of Congress. If they don't do what you want, vote them out of office. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to do the job that is supposed to rest in the hands of voters.

It is also not  the job of the President and Executive Branch to usurp or overturn or write new laws by virtue of executive order. The Executive Branch is also not supposed to refuse to enforce duly passed laws. If they do this, then you have an opportunity every 4 years to do something about it.

Throwing rocks in the street or shouting at one another on cable TV might be fun but it doesn't change the law. As much as I may disagree with laws passed by Congress, if my side of the debate does not prevail, then I just have to work harder next time to convince my fellow citizens to vote for like minded candidates.

In the news even today we hear about displeasure with the 2nd Amendment (the right to bear arms...gun ownership) and the laws concerning definition of marriage (among other things.) If you don't agree with or like those laws, change them. But you better have enough Americans that agree with you. That's just the way it works.

We want to know why

Life is full of events and circumstances that generate the question, "why?" Humans have a yearning to understand things. We ask "why?" a lot.

The massacre at a Colorado movie theater has us asking this question again. What happens in the human mind and soul that compels a person to do a heinous act like that? Some say that he must just be crazy. What is crazy? I'm sure that psychiatrists have a definition but I doubt they still use the word "crazy" ...that's for us laymen.

We want answers. Why did he do this? How can we prevent this from ever happening again? What influences in his life stimulated this violence? THERE HAS TO BE A REASON!

Even in these few days since the shooting, opinions are flying around like gnats at a Georgia picnic.

Some have said that the newest Batman/Dark Knight Rises movie that was premiering at the theater was to blame. The shooter must have been obsessed with one of the violent movie characters. Others have suggested that our ultra-discourteous, partisan, downright mean public discourse is to blame (even Rush Limbaugh was singled out as a cause.) I think I read that someone was blaming the Tea Party. There is a picture floating around on Facebook that alleges to be James Holmes being hauled away at an Occupy San Diego protest (it is a hoax, I believe.) It's the Republicans' fault...no it's the Democrats' fault. Obama is to blame...no, Romney is to blame.

This sounds like a school yard argument.

Of course, the 2nd Amendment is once again being dragged into the discussion. That pesky Constitutional right that our forefathers were compelled to add to the Constitution is being characterized as the scapegoat. If people were not able to have access to all these guns, people would stop shooting each other (they say.) I've seen the statistics of the gun deaths in other countries that have gun control laws compared to those in the United States. Looks pretty clear to me...guns have made Americans violent, crazy and murderous. Right. On the other hand, gun rights advocates say that if there was someone else in that theater that had a carry permit and was actually carrying a gun (the theater chain does not allow guns in their theaters even with a permit) maybe the shooter could have been stopped before he did as much harm. We'll never know.

Just like in other instances when we see the worst of human behavior, we quickly jump to the answers that fit our own ideological biases. Political types want to know whether he leaned to the Democrat side or the Republican side as if that would allow them to brag that their political opponent's platform is causing mass murder. Shameful thinking. Someone in a dark room is wondering how this can be used in an advertisement to make their political opponent look bad. News anchors and talking heads are falling all over themselves to get the better news scoop so that their ratings and paychecks will move in the same direction. Disgusting.

There are families in Aurora, Colorado that are hurting in ways most of us can never comprehend. In the meantime, the rest of us are posting Facebook pictures with edgy captions about the incident that we think cleverly answer the why question. Twitterland, I'm sure, is full of 140 character epiphanies about the reasons for the tragedy. It's like we have come up on a wreck on the Interstate and we can't help but rubberneck...and do our 15 second evaluations... "must have been driving too fast", "Oh, I'm sure he was drinking", "I bet she was sending a text message." And I am writing this blog so I guess, I'm no better...

Maybe James Holmes will eventually articulate why he did what he did. Doctors may eventually determine that he is mentally ill.

In the meantime, I will accept what I already know from what my Bible and 56 years of living tell me. Evil exists. Humans are capable of doing things that most of us cannot understand. It has happened before. Unfortunately, it will happen again.

In the meantime, let's lift up these Aurora families in prayer. Pray also that people all around the world will come to know Jesus, the Prince of Peace and that, through that re-birth, human hearts will change. That's the only real solution.