What would happen if Bermuda, on the issue of marital equality (previously called same-sex marriage), decided to catch up with the rest of the world and conducted a nationwide referendum on it?What would the voting be?I ask because in Maryland, US, that state is split pretty much down the middle on whether marital equality is something that should be allowed and recognised there. And in Australia, that wondrous island is gripped with marriage equality fever at this time too.More than 45,000 Australians, using nothing more than their own free will, have today, April 4, told a Senate inquiry that they support same-sex marriage, thus wanting to change the current law, with a further 34,000 writing to the same Senate detailing why it should be left as it is.A Senate committee is examining the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012, now and it’s due to report to Parliament on June 18. From there it will be decided whether or not profoundly Christian-bound Australia, allows same-sex marriage. And that’s all she wrote.It took just one politician, as it will here one day soonish ... to table it before Parliament ... and bingo, advocates from both sides will rally, and you will be divided among yourselves, your house, friends etc.This is the hottest potato on the planet. Perhaps if it were a hot onion ... it may have come here sooner! So where do you stand?What if your work mate asked you that very question; “Hey, should same-sex marriage be legalised and allowed to happen in Bermuda?”Human nature tells us the answers often said out loud, do not reflect what is said in secret in ballot. Something the One Bermuda Alliance needs to take into consideration re: Mind Maps Polls at present.But, let’s get off the pending election topic ... oh, wait, though here’s a thought. Why doesn’t one of the parties here come out right now, just a few months shy of a General Election, and pose the question of same sex marriage to the nation’s constituents?If it were supported by someone on the OBA, would that harm them at the polls? If it were denounced by someone in the Progressive Labour Party, would that help them? I asked OBA Sen Michael Dunkley, straight up front, what he thought. After all, he is the most ‘liked’ politician on the Island, according to Mind Maps.Here’s what he said: ”No I do not support same-sex marriages. Marriage to me is a union between a man and a women. At another time I am happy to engage in a full discussion on this matter including the elimination of discrimination based on sexual orientation.“If you ask this question to other politicians I would be interested in the response. While this is a very interesting topic my focus now is on the big challenges we face in Bermuda with our economy, creating opportunity and jobs, making the Island safer and more secure, improving education and providing access to affordable healthcare for all.”I will ask other pollies, and the rank and file in due course ... but not today. Instead, I’m going to be impartial and look at pros and cons for both arguments. And what you will read ... can and probably will shock.Separation of Church and StateFirstly ... is there one in Bermuda? Now supposing there is ... then why do we have it in law that marriage is a privilege provided only by God between a man and a woman? If a separation of church and state exists ... there should be no law discriminating against same-sex marriage, as advocated by Christians, bigots and homophobes.A Christian View“You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, it is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22).Now, nowhere in scripture does it align that to marriage, however, one must concede that traditionally marriage has been a religious institution that exists between a man and a woman.Another solid argument is, if there’s nothing special about the gender of the parties in a marriage, then presumably, there is nothing special about the number of people in a marriage.So long as they are all consenting adults, right? If, however, you believe that polygamy (more than one partner) should be banned, then you agree that people have a right to demand that the government put limits on the definition of marriage. Which is it? Or is it just okay to discriminate against polygamists?According to modern translated scripture, God’s design of marriage is one male and one female ... a civil partnership between a man and a woman, so anything else IS attempting to “normalise” a lifestyle that IS an oddity. Any “law” created by the courts and/or any indoctrination of the public by a group of people, especially in the school settings of innocent students to attempt to “change” God’s design, is wrong!In the modern, English translations, the Bible does not explicitly mention same-sex marriage as being wrong. It is clear, however, in scripture that God calls homosexuality unnatural sin and one of the things that will prevent one getting into Heaven. The church exists to save people, not to bless the means of their damnation.No marriage can be sanctioned by the church if the very basis of the marriage involves acts that put the couple outside of eternal salvation. No matter what our society may legislate, the law of God is clear that a marriage is not a godly marriage if it is a same sex union.Marriage is a fundamental social institution that does not exist just for the emotional satisfaction of two individuals but for the greater good of the community which stands under the blessing or curse of God. God will judge any society that institutes same-sex marriages.A Natural/Psychological ViewSome say this isn’t a civil rights issue, others believe that gay marriage could lead to the legalisation of bestiality and inter-species marriage. It would also open the door to the desire about having just one married partner.Modern secular psychology contends that a union between a man and woman in which both spouses serve as good gender role models is the best environment in which to raise well-adjusted children. Psychology argues against gay marriage. In nature/physicality, clearly, men and women were designed to “fit” together sexually. With the “natural” purpose of sexual intercourse being procreation, clearly only a sexual relationship between a man and a woman can fulfill this purpose. Nature, therefore, argues against gay marriage.Modern English Bible Verses Translated Back to Original HebrewHere is where life gets interesting. We all know the Bible as it stands today on your book shelf in the English world, is different to what it was written in the ancient and original Hebrew and Greek texts. It has been changed by the church, watered down, and in some instances made to reflect something totally different to what the original was intended. And one of those changes concerns David, the one in scripture in all translations, described as, “a man after God’s own heart”. (Acts 13:22).Before you read this, I am a researcher by nature, a harbinger, so in no way should you shoot the messenger if what you read doesn’t suit you.That said, according to the ancient Hebrew translations of the Bible which are a lot closer to what God intended we read than what we read today David (he of the killing of Goliath fame) was married and his father-In-law was King Saul.In saying marriage, back in those days a covenant between two people, translated in English, as a marriage, was very different to what we perceive a marriage to be today. Perhaps the most important difference between the times of David and marriage and its modern-day counterpart is that, in biblical times, government did not regulate marriage.There was no such thing as a marriage licence, or need to question who you could marry. The government did not care who married whom, or how many wives a man had. It was, therefore a VERY different world when the scriptures were written, and the scriptures referred to the world of the time!The custom of the day was for two people to make a covenant with each other. The marriage began with the agreement or covenant between the two. Some time afterward, there would be a feast for public recognition of the agreement, and a contract would be signed by both parties, putting in writing what they had already promised to each other.After this was done, and only then, would the couple live together and be intimate with each other. Prior to the signing of the covenant, the couple was spoken of as betrothed or engaged, but this had a meaning different from today’s concept of betrothal or engagement.Their betrothal was as morally binding as the marriage itself, and could only be broken by divorce, even though no contract had been signedIn I Samuel 18:3-4, the Hebrew translation of the day, tells us that King Saul’s son Jonathan and David made a covenant, and that, to seal the covenant, Jonathan took off all the things he was wearing and gave them to David.The things he took off tell us a lot about the covenant itself. He took off his sword and bow and gave them to David, signifying that he intended to protect David. But it went further than that.By taking off all his clothes, he signified a much deeper and more intense relationship. From that day, David moved in with Jonathan (verse 2) and did not live at home with his parents anymore, further indicating the type of covenant they had made. (In Biblical times, a man did not leave his parents’ home until he married).Now, King Saul did not like his son being married to David not because it was unnatural, but because he wanted Jonathan to succeed him as King and to produce an heir.Saul then wanted David killed so this could happen, and so with them being married, this presented a problem. The Bible then tells us (in both Hebrew and English translations), that King Saul offered his daughter Michal to David as a bride. And Saul said to David, “Today you will be my son-in-law through two.”That is, he would be the King’s son-in-law twice, through two of Saul’s children. With which of Saul’s children did David already have a covenant?Hmmm, three of Saul’s children are mentioned in this chapter. David had no covenant with Merab, who married someone else. He was about to make a covenant with Michal. The only other child of Saul’s was Jonathan. Verse 21 proves in the Hebrew text that the covenant was a marriage covenant and that Saul recognised (but didn’t necessarily approve of) the marriage.Food for thought.Same-sex marriage had a precedent in scripture and by one of the real biblical heavyweights. So, we know that to get the full value of a joy you must have somebody to divide joy with. And David had that joy through Jonathan ... who was his original choice as a partner.Now remember, God makes all things and he made David and David was, “a man after God’s own heart” (Acts 13:22).And God knew that David would be a Biblical heavyweight whose life and actions and sexual desires would be scrutinised throughout all the ages. One can’t say that God made all things, then for convenience sake, turn their back on one of those creations!This could present a whole new look at those debating, through constant scriptural references, the worthwhileness of same-sex marriage. I shall leave you with this quote from the great American writer and thinker, Henry Miller:“Imagination is the voice of daring. If there is anything Godlike about God it is that. He dared to imagine everything.”