Friday, January 23, 2004

Get Me to the Matri-Shack on Time

Marriage is a sacred institution.  But who wants to live in an institution? Sen. Barney Frank

I’m hearing more and more these days about the sacred institution of marriage and the importance of protecting it with a constitutional amendment that will save Americans from the danger of two persons of the same gender building a life together, heaven forfend.  In that homosexuality is a heretofore-unknown creation of soft-minded one-worlders from the 1930s, the current moral establishment is having trouble coming to grips with this new threat, and is responding in the time-honored way of overreacting and overlegislating.  Or are they?

It’s pretty clear to me that the sacred aspect of marriage is sullied far more by heterosexual unions that flaunt or parody the institution of marriage than by gay couples who are committed to each other and constructive in their community.  But the proposed Constitutional Amendment is so brief and so riddled with omissions that it would do nothing to protect the tender youth of this great nation from the evils and dangers inherent in thoughtless, loveless marriages - even when they’re getting married to a person with complimentary, rather than redundant, plumbing.  (BTW “Redundant Plumbing” is now the name of my techno band that I will form later today.  Swipe it at your peril.) So I’ve canvassed a few clever people, masticated their advice, and come up with a few more points that should be included in any federal legislation concerning the sanctity of marriage:

1.  Marrying couples cannot be matched by any means relying on a contest, drawing, lottery, or votes from any third party or parties. All “prizes” or gifts of value propounded as an inducement to marriage shall be forfeit to the state.  True love needs no Fox TV special.
2.  Marriage is permanent - only one per lifetime, unless you are widowed by natural causes.  Serial monogamous unions dilute sanctity like ice dilutes bourbon.  Divorce shall be granted only upon completion of government-sponsored “marriage preservation” programs.  Failure to complete such a program will prohibit the issuance of any decree of divorce.
3. Married persons must live in the same house, under the same roof, sleeping in the same bed, 80% of the year.  If business calls you away more often than that, you are not contributing sufficiently to the relationship; this sullies sanctity and the marriage is a sham.  Luckily, it probably matches the shams on your hideously over-decorated country-livin’ bed. 
4.  Marriage should only be performed in licensed religious facilities or governmental edifices.  Hotels demean the sanctity of the experience.  Permits for “unauthorized” locations should be available only upon advance petition to the local governmental licensing agency by the parties to be married, and not by a facilitator, planner, hotel or other staff, or some guy who thinks getting married at the Space Needle would be “bitchin’.” Naturally, this represents a valuable source of revenue for local governments, but more importantly, it protects us from the spectacle of people getting married in drive-up matri-shacks and tacky ballrooms.  You can’t wind up sacred when you start so skanky.  (This is actually the subtitle to Madonna’s next book of photographs.)
5. Adultery should be converted from a civil tort to a federal crime, punishable by a term in a penitentiary.  Sentencing guidelines should mimic those for crack cocaine, since the evil we seek to extirpate is equally invidious. 
6. Married couples must report on the strength of their marriage annually and, if things are shaky, they should be compelled to attend government-sponsored counselling or lose tax benefits.  Keep those precious unions sound!
7. Persons getting married must be no less than 21 years of age and must attest under oath with penalties of perjury that they have known each other for more than six months.  We can’t go around having mere children falling in love and suddenly getting married after four months like my parents did.  That way madness lies. 

For the record, in case anyone is stumbling over this rant as an introduction to my feverish overresponses to current events, I’ve been very happily married to a person of the opposite sex for 14 years.  I don’t really think any of the rules I proposed are good ideas.  I just think that we need to make sure, if radical conservatives are trying to build a box to keep us all in rank and file, that the box should really constrain all of us.  If they get to design our matrimonial protocols, the only ones who’ll feel the chafe would be the powerless.  Let’s propose some legislation that nobody will like, that will get some real lobbying dollars behind a “defeat this flaming baggie of poo” campaign.  We can’t let them define this issue.  Your right to marry a stranger precipitously on national television for a big cash prize depends on it.