Smart Bombs: Marriage on the rocks
Did you notice the change in your marriage this week? A lack of desire to procreate? Or, perhaps, just a general sense that it wasn’t as special as it once was? Well, don’t blame it on yourself or your spouse. Blame it on those lawmakers in Olympia who on Monday installed another smooth steppingstone on the path to gay marriage.
Yes, the special nature of traditional marriage took another hit, and this time the wound wasn’t self-inflicted. No, it wasn’t the 50 percent divorce rate or the endless do-overs we give husbands and wives with no questions asked. Can’t pin this on those Hollywood celebrities who, with the endorsement of government, can change spouses as often as they change roles.
No, this time the culprit is a law that precludes discrimination against same-sex couples. That’s right, just because government won’t allow those pesky gays and lesbians to get married, they had to throw all the unfairness back in our faces. Yes, there are scores of legal rights attached to marriage, but can’t these people get over themselves? How would they like it if they had to face the unraveling of the sacred institution of marriage because others wanted to horn in on the action?
They couldn’t possibly know what it’s like. Besides, there’s no law preventing a gay man from proposing to a lesbian, so it’s a myth that they can’t get married.
And, please, don’t tell me that this new law has nothing to do with gay marriage. After all, if you remove the legal rights affixed to marriage, there’s no point in government being involved. Well, government is involved, so there must be a point.
The point is this: Traditional couples are special. As state Rep. Matt Shea, R-Mead, said on Monday:
“At the founding of our country, we made a conscious decision to promote marriage above all other legal unions, because of the inherent value of raising children in a home with a mom and a dad.”
History doesn’t lie. Traditional couples make babies. Well, some of them do. The ones who don’t or can’t should be barred from marriage. Fact is, we should consider removing children from the homes of widows, widowers and divorced parents if they don’t get remarried after a certain amount of time. Those children need adults of both genders in the house. Divorced people should be viewed with extra caution, unless they’re advocates for traditional families – like, say, Matt Shea. For them, the government should issue waivers, because at least they “get it” and will surely support Referendum 71, which will restore discrimination so that marriage can be protected.
Besides, who’s to say that it wasn’t a wedding in San Francisco or Iowa City that caused a traditional couple to break up?
Note to readers: Yes, the above item is satirical.