[Note: sarcasm and parody below]
The sole purpose of marriage is for procreation and child-rearing. Specifically, marriage is between a man and a woman for the purpose of rearing children with both a mommy and daddy. Always has been, always will be.
Now, while allowing gay people into this institution will diminish this purpose of marriage, marriage defenders must take note that gay people aren't allowed to marry now, yet divorce rates and out-of-wedlock birthrates are sky high! With all this attention and focus fighting the homosexual lobby and trying to keep homosexuals out of marriage while not trying to change laws, constitutions, and behaviors that would affect heterosexual couples, many people have forgotten that marriage defenders can take actual steps to strengthen marriage! Yes, ladies and gents, laws can be created and constitutional amendments can be passed to help heterosexuals strengthen marriage!!
And thus, a proposal is born.....
If it's true that marriage exists solely for procreation and child-rearin', I'm confident that marriage defenders will agree with the following proposal:
1. Heterosexual couples, upon deciding that they want to live the rest of their lives together, will go get a civil union license from the county clerk.
2. The county clerk will ask them: "Are you willing and able to procreate?"
3. If the answer is yes, the couple will state on their civil union license exactly how many children they plan on having and when they plan on having these children. Then, the couple will receive a civil union license. A civil union license represents a loving committment that two people have to sharing a life together.
4. If it turns out that the married couple does not, or finds out they cannot, have children, the marriage will remain a civil union for the duration of the relationship.
5. If the couple indicated on their civil union license that they planned on having children, the couple may apply for and shall receive a marriage license when the woman becomes pregnant. Note that both a civil union license and a marriage license will entitle couples to receive legal benefits, privileges, and responsibilities of marriage. The words are just different.
6. If a married woman's pregnancy does not result in a live birth, the marital relationship will automatically, by law, convert back to a civil union.
7. Since marriage serves the important state interest of rearing children with both a mother and a father, the marriage will be valid up until the final and youngest child turns 18. At this point, all important childrearing duties having been accomplished, the marriage will automatically convert back to a civil union. Similarly, it should be noted that if a child dies before the age of 18, the marriage will also convert back to a civil union unless another minor child is present.
8. During a marriage, divorce will not be permitted. Couples with children who merely "fall out of love" must remain married until all children reach adulthood. In other words, there's no such thing as no-fault divorce. This provision will ensure that all children are reared by both a father and a mother up until the age of adulthood. This provision will also enable heterosexual families to take concrete steps to ensure the survival of this basic traditional family structure, and civilization as a whole, really.
Marriage is not about love, after all. It's about the children. It's about ensuring that all children have a mommy and a daddy. Because, frankly, we believe the children are our future. We should teach them well and, with both a mother and a father present, let them lead the way. I say, we should show them all the beauty they possess inside themselves (thanks to those fathers and mothers) to make it easier.
*Ahem* moving on....
9. Adultery will be outlawed, as adultery may result in out-of-wedlock births and the destruction of the family unit. Criminals will be branded as marriage destroyers and will be fined or imprisoned for each criminal act. Further, if a non-married man impregnates a woman outside of the marital relationship, the man and the women he impregnated must marry. This provision will ensure that all children are raised by a father. Oh yeah, and a mother.
10. The following heterosexual couples may, under no circumstances, receive a marriage license: elderly couples, any couple where the woman is post-menopausal, or couples where one or both spouse is sterile. Couples choosing not to have children, however, may choose to have children later. If so, upon the woman's pregnancy, the civil unionized couple may apply for a marriage license.
11. Now, I know what some of you may be thinking. Why call these relationships different names if they confer the exact same legal privileges, benefits, and responsibilities? Just remember: it's about how the sole purpose of marriage is procreation and child-rearing. Sure, couples who do not or cannot have children may not like having their relationship referred to as a mere "civil union." They should be convinced, however, that separate is equal. It's not that families with children are better than families without children, it's just that families with children are better than families without children. See, it is essential to make familial distinctions based on procreation. People are too confused now with they way things are.
Bonus Steps (to be decided by individual states):
A. Since marriage has little to do with love, parents and family will be especially encouraged to arrange marriages for their children. States may decide to make arranged marriages a requirement.
B. States are encouraged to pass constitutional amendments to ban out-of-wedlock childbirth. Children born outside of the sacred marital institution have no guarantee that they will be raised by a mommy and a daddy. Frankly, we just don't know if the poor bastards will grow up to be happy, normal, or meaningful contributors to society.
C. Eventually, this social engineering bill will eliminate the need for adoption. As babies who are adopted aren't really part of the traditional family model, states may decide to outlaw adoption. This ban will ensure that all children are raised by their biological mother and father. This ban recognizes the fact that parents are immune to death while they have minor children. Moreover, children in need of adoption (up until the time adoption isn't needed anymore, of course) shall be placed in two-parent families that are headed by a husband and wife. This provision applies even if there are no such families within the child's own family. For, it is better that the child be raised by a mother-father stranger than it is for the child to be raised by a single parent who is a relative.
D. Sex outside of the marital relationship shall be discouraged as it may result in a pregnancy. States can be creative here. For instance, some may choose to ban non-marital or pre-marital sex and impose penalties on offenders (ie- imprisonment, fines, creation of "sexual offender" lists). Some states can recognize the reality that some people are going to have sex even if they're not married. These states may mandate birth control of sterilization for all men and/or women.
Note that this proposal doesn't mention gay people. The "gay people will destroy families" red herring is thus avoided. In sum, I have created a more logical and practical way for marriage defenders to ensure the success of the marital institution than the passive "don't let gays in and we just keep schleppin' along doin' what we're doin" proposal they currently espouse. I am confident that staunch marriage defenders, if they are truly concerned about the breakdown of the family unit, will agree with this proposal. Convincing the rest of America, ahem, may be another matter. But I wish them the best of luck.
For, now, they can actually take action to better their unions instead of being scared about all the bad things that may or may not happen to families as a result of gay marriage. After all, it seems more fruitful to pass legislation directly affecting the behavior of heterosexuals, who comprise roughly 90% of the population, in relationships than it would be to pass legislation affecting gay people- whose effect on marriage is negligible. And then, once marriage defenders and heterosexuals get their own houses and marriages in order, we can revisit the gay issue.
"Marriage Defenders", contact your Congresspersons now. I've already done the homework for you.
And just remember, Whoa-ooh-whoa what's love got to do, got to do with it?