Comment on this story

The sanctity of marriage could benefit from a slight revision

by Steve Dupree

In keeping with the spirit of the political season, I am now willing to compromise on one of my dastardly liberal positions. Certain elements of our society are seeking to insure the sanctity of (their view of) marriage by writing a constitutional amendment that describes marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. Their purpose is to deny gays (and general contrarians, I suppose) the ability to marry someone they love who happens to be of the same gender as they.

OK. I’m willing to support their constitutionally defined version of marriage if, and a big IF, and only if they will agree to one little change that I have in mind. In actuality, the change I would make to the amendment would further strengthen the sanctity of marriage. The only possible downside is that it requires one to have faith in their verbalized convictions. That isn’t going to be a problem for you good Christians out there is it? No? Good.

My condition, my addition to the amendment, is simply that divorce be abolished. That’s right, unconditionally abolish divorce and I will support the idea of marriage as a one man/one woman-only gig. You want sanctity? This will give marriage sanctity to spare.

Just think (boy is that good advice!); your husband’s 17-year-old girlfriend comes to your home and shoots you in an effort to get you out of the picture. If you survive, you stay married, forever. The industrious supermodel you married puts on a couple of hundred pounds and just lays around the house watching Jerry Springer? Life’s a bitch and it looks like you married one. You stay married, forever. Just found out your spouse is, and always has been, gay? Bummer, but, there is nothing prohibiting gays from marrying as long as it isn’t a same-sex thing. You stay married, forever.

Come on people, I know you can get behind this. After all, with the help of the Constitution, your heroes would not have been tempted to make the mistakes that I’m sure they now must surely regret. Newt Gingrich (R-Scum) would not have been able to inform his cancer-ridden wife that he was leaving her for a younger woman. Rush Limbaugh (R-Serial Liar) would not have the weight of worrying about the moral implications of multiple divorces distracting him from his important work of (mis)informing the mentally deficient.

It just occurred to me that while we’re at it, we could undo some of the damage already done. We could make this whole no-divorce thing retroactive. Anyone with only one marriage is still married. If you have multiple marriages, only the first one is valid—anything after that is automatically annulled by this amendment.

In the interest of fairness, attorneys will get to keep their earnings for divorces which are no longer valid. With no more divorce, they will have to look for new ways to earn a living and the fees we let them keep will serve to tide them over.

Marriage will once again be a special thing. A couple will know that when they promise to be with each other until death do them part, they will have the full force of the Constitution of the United States of America reinforcing their vow.

I know no one is thinking that this could lead to an increase in the spousal murder rate. Such a thought would indicate a cynicism about love and marriage that is unworthy of those to whom the sanctity of marriage is a serious concern. On the other hand, it may be that former divorce attorneys could now specialize in investigating any suspicious deaths of married people. They might also represent married and incompatible couples in their legal actions against the dating services that put them together to start with. If that doesn’t work out, I’m sure that there would be a strong need for additional marriage counselors, so they might want to think about getting out of the legal field entirely.

There may be those of you out there who are thinking my proposal would be unnecessary meddling in the private affairs of the citizenry by the government. The idea that the government would have final say in the issue of with whom you spend your life offends you. You believe that is not something that the government ought be concerned with. I could not agree more.

November 11, 2004 • Vol. 14, No. 46 © 2004 Metro Pulse