Maybe I am justified in the anger, maybe not. You be the judge and let me know in the comments section.
A coworker of mine recently got married. Now, this is a woman who, if I am being honest, I have never really liked from the beginning. She's a product of social justice academia through and through, and one of the first things I heard her talk about was a special on t.v. showing how the Obamas had decorated the White House for some holiday. Gag. Obviously I have a bias against people I think a) have received benefits for relying on minority status and b) anyone who likes Obama :) Kidding!
The thing that really bothers me (again, you be the judge on the justification factor) is that she isn't feminine at all. She doesn't wear any make-up, or brush her hair, or wear clothes that fit. And she's a trim, well-built woman, so she could look very pretty in the right clothes. But she doesn't even try, or it's almost like she doesn't want to be seen as a woman.
I actually tried hard to like her because she comes from a military family, and I thought perhaps we'd share sentiment in that direction. But no, she leans to the left on policy there, too, citing the numerous negative factors of being a "military child." So I tried, but I'm pretty judgmental (surprise), and there you have it.
Anyway, she just got married. After a week-long honeymoon, she returned today with a sparkling ring and a sparkling smile to greet us with. Me being someone who enjoys seeing men and women marry each other greeted her back with, "Good morning, Mrs. ..." trailing off because I didn't know her husband's last name. "Oh, no!" She answered back. "I'm not a 'Mrs.' I didn't want that. I am still Miss B---."
Huh. Ok, let me get this straight. You love the guy, you want to be with him forever (or so the vows say), you want the benefits of a joined life and economics, the security and pleasure of having that man around... but you won't take his name? Sorry, but I don't get it. And I don't like it.
To me, and this is just my opinion, you can't be half-in, half-out in a marriage. You are either, in your mind and heart, committed to the person and whatever comes along with that, or you aren't. You are married, or you are single. There really isn't an in-between. Being engaged may seem like a caveat, but it really is just a waiting period of singleness until you are married.
Now, I know this woman is not Biblical in any way - she said long ago that there would be no priest or pastor at her ceremony, heaven forbid! - and does not desire to please God. Though she knows He exists (because everybody does), she doesn't care what He thinks of her, or her of Him. She has described herself as "definitely not religious," so it's fair to assume that she doesn't care about being "joined" and "becoming one" with her husband. But I still wonder, how can she not see the contradiction in wanting all the serious, long-lasting elements of a marriage without also taking a superficial part, his name?
You see, folks, this is a product of liberal politics and education. She has been brainwashed into believing that she doesn't need a man*, that his identity has nothing to do with hers, and that she can take care of herself. Yet, the innate being of this woman, instilled by God (whom she can deny all she wants but is still her Creator), urges her to settle down with a man, to ceremoniously commit to him in front of family and friends, and to vow to serve him (in some respect) for her whole life.
It's a paradox that she doesn't understand, but she is now living it out. Please pray that God would give her the gospel (because Paul says the gospel is not taught, as of men, but given of God) she needs to understand who she really is. Her name is Cat.
*Not every woman will be/should be married, but we do all exist in a partnership with men, not in opposition to them.