For all you loyal followers of my blog, boy do I have a scoop for you! In case you have a son who is approaching bar mitzvah age, hold off on all the plans, cancel the caterer. As it turns out, if all goes right, the age of bar mitzvah will be changing in the near future. The new age will be either nine or eighteen—that's a detail that has not yet been worked out.

You see, in today's day and age, thirteen is not a very sensible age to schedule a rite of passage into adulthood. It's a tough time, the boys have just entered adolescence and are for the most part rebellious little kids who think they are adults. This makes bar mitzvah lessons a daunting task. I figure that training nine-year-olds will make for a much smoother ride. Alternatively, eighteen year olds make for attractive and idealistic bar mitzvah candidates too.

So, I've filed papers with the New York State Supreme Court, requesting that they consider changing the outdated bar mitzvah age. (Thirteen was fine back in the times when children were apprenticed to blacksmiths at the age of eight...)

I'm still in consultations with my attorneys as to which age to shoot for. They are reviewing the Court's past decisions, based on which they will determine which argument stands a better chance in front of the Court's current composition.

Sounds ludicrous to you? Do you think I am naïve for believing that secular jurists will issue a legal decision on a purely religious matter?

Think again.

This past Thursday, the California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on intra-gender marriage, saying that the gender identity of the two partners "does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights... the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians..."

If the Court wishes to grant legal and/or economic privileges to two individuals who choose to establish a joint household—then I can see the grounds for a legitimate debate: Is homosexuality immoral? And if yes, to what extent do the courts have the right to legislate morality?

But that is not the issue at hand. The issue is marriage. Marriage is, and always was, a religious idea: the idea that a relationship between a man and woman can be sanctioned as a holy union, as a partnership in which G‑d takes part. Does the California Supreme Court believe that their ruling will obligate G‑d to enter a relationship He does not condone?

Marriage is not a civil institution; it is a religious one. The Court's intervention in this matter is, in my opinion, a dangerous precedent. This is a decision that should be left to the clergy.