November 12, 2008

We need to work HARDER to protect marriage

I have, one might say, finally seen the light.  In order to protect the sanctity, the integrity, of marriage, we need to protect it all the way.


Marriage only between a man and a woman?  Yes.  But marriage--for the good of the family, for the strength of our very society built upon the family unit as its foundation--must be returned to the purity that it once enjoyed.

Because a marriage will grow weak if the husband and wife are separated for long periods, people who are likely to live in different places for more than two consecutive weeks within a twelve month time should be ineligible to marry.  This would rule out incarcerated convicts, fishermen, husbands who take frequent long business trips, and anyone in the military.

Because anyone who has failed at marriage once is likely to recidivate, divorcees should be ineligible to marry (again).

Because marriage must originate from a place of purity, anyone who has had premarital sex should be ineligible to marry.  This would eliminate nearly everyone who attended college and everyone over the age of twelve in Arkansas.

Because the tradition of the female as the home-based caregiver is critical to the continuing health of the family unit, any woman with a job should be ineligible to marry.  Furthermore, any woman who has ever held a job is likely to suffer internal conflict after giving up the job, and that would only lead to resentment.  Thus, any woman who has ever worked should be ineligible to marry.

Because marriage as a state-recognized institution is primarily for the encouragement of family units, any person who is likely to use birth control after the wedding should be ineligible to marry.  (Difficult perhaps to enforce, so it should instead be illegal for married couples to use any form of birth control.)  Furthermore, any individual professing a desire to go through life without procreating should be ineligible to marry.

Because people who were abused or molested as children have a higher statistical probability of engaging in similar activities, and because such activities endanger the family unit, anyone who has ever been abused or molested or raped should be ineligible to marry.

Children require a solid, fully functional, two-parent (mom and dad) family to grow into proper, society-supporting adults.  Thus, any child of a single parent household (through no fault of his or her own) must be deemed unlikely to be able to sustain a proper relationship and therefore must be ineligible to marry.

Who will help write this new, much more robust and vigorous Protection of Marriage amendment to the California constitution?  I am certain I could get enough signatures to put it on the ballot.  Anyone who voted YES on Prop 8 would be compelled by the sanctity of traditional marriage and the need to protect the health of the proper family unite to vote YES on this proposition, too.  Anyone want to take a stab at the language?

By the way, do people who "see the light" understand that what they're seeing is the perfect integration of the entire rainbow?

6 comments:

JaneyV said...

That's what it was like growing up in Ireland in the 70's!

You may joke Pete but you someone out there will look at this and be thinking "Mmm - he's got a point!"

blogless troll said...

Brilliant.

Precie said...

Very Jonathan Swift of you! Excellent.

Aerin said...

By the way, do people who "see the light" understand that what they're seeing is the perfect integration of the entire rainbow?

This got me teary-eyed.

pacatrue said...

I used to fantasize about having ballot measures forbidding redheads to marry or some such. (Apologies, janeyv.) And yes I have strange sarcastic fantasies.

pacatrue said...

Looks like some others have had similar thoughts. Here's a video on funny or die that isn't that funny, but fairly serious.