Towards a Real Defense of Marriage Act

I have never understood why a lesbian or gay couple that has been together in a loving relationship for 20 years can’t get married, but an 18 year old boy who knocks up a 16 year old girl can get hitched before the year is out and will often be encouraged to do so.

And yet the President of the United States believes that the sanctity of marriage can only be maintained if we pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting people of the same sex from marrying, defining marriage as an act only between a man and a woman, and prohibiting judges from requiring states to grant same-sex couples the legal benefits of marriage.

Now, we all recognize this as an election year ploy to divide voters and enable right-wing conservatives to win or maintain seats in Congress. But the very flawed theory behind it—at least the theory they hope slow thinkers will gravitate towards—is that somehow or other, heterosexual marriage as we know it is under attack. If we allow gays and lesbians to marry, the theory goes, then somehow or other we’ll no longer have any more straight folks running to the altar, and kids will grow up without a mommy and a daddy. Civilization as we know it will go to hell in a handbasket. Or so the theory goes.

Mind you, the divorce rate for married couples has held steady at about 50 percent for decades now, and 30 percent of American families are headed by a single parent according to the most recent census. That 1950’s image of the intact nuclear family hasn’t existed in reality since…well…the 1950’s, if it did even then.

And if we want to talk about the destruction of civilization, well George Bush is doing a good enough job of that all by himself.

And yet there are no laws on the books in any state putting limits on the number of marriage licenses that can be issued, so clearly any “threats” to the institution of marriage come from elsewhere, most likely problems affecting individual couples and the circumstances around their decision to marry. Instead of denying loving same sex couples the right to the benefits of marriage, perhaps these protectors should look at making other changes. Since they seem unwilling to do so, I’ll put forth my own package of laws and changes I think would really defend and solidify marriage:

First, let’s impose mandatory age limits. If you have to be 18 to serve in the military and 21 to buy alcohol, why is it you can get married at 16? Raise the minimum age of marriage to 21, then impose…

Mandatory marriage counseling and training for all couples that get engaged. Such services should take at least a year to complete before couples can even plan the wedding. Counseling should include alternative dispute resolution training, family financial planning, relationship coaching, sexual advice, “home economics” classes and compatibility testing.

Eliminate shotgun weddings. No one should be forced to marry just because they’ve made someone pregnant. This would not relieve them of the responsibility of child support, but just because you can make a baby doesn’t mean you can create a loving family. Too many forced marriages only create more problems.

Eliminate eloping. It should be illegal to be able to run off and get married without telling others or receiving the mandatory counseling and training. This would include the drunks who stumble into wedding chapels in Nevada only to wake up the next morning sober and married.

Put a financial cap on wedding expenses. Bridezillas who want to impress their friends by holding the wedding to end all weddings start marriage off on the wrong foot. The couple and/or their families are all in debt out the ass and everybody is stressed out on wedding day trying to live out her princess fantasies. Keep it simple stupid and save the big blowout for your 25th anniversary.

Police background checks should be required whenever there is a wide disparity in either the age or financial status of the couple. Can a 20 year old big breasted blonde really love an 80 year old impotent millionaire? Maybe, but a mandatory police check might weed out the phonies. It would also uncover the polygamists and con artists.

Local communities must seriously address domestic violence. Violence in the home is one of the chief causes of broken marriages. Counseling in anger management must be available when appropriate, or else there should be incarceration with stiff penalties for first time offenders when necessary. Restraining orders rarely work.

Financial viability tests should be required before couples can have children. Kids cost money and couples that don’t have sufficient means to support them, should not be allowed to have them. Many couples are neither financially capable nor mentally mature enough to handle child-rearing and this often leads to divorce. However, we should…

Make divorces harder to obtain. Fifty percent of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce. Some people cut and run at the first sign of trouble, so the “quickie divorce” should be outlawed. Pass laws making marriage and financial counseling mandatory, since money issues are also a leading cause of divorce. A long cooling off period should be imposed to determine if reconciliation is possible.

Put a cap on alimony. Either a one-time payment or a fixed percentage of the wealthier spouses income, tied to the number of years in the marriage, would also deter the “gold-digger” syndrome. Alimony should be separation pay not retirement benefits.

The goal of my defense of marriage act would be to help those who wish to get married by giving them support before, during and if necessary, after the marriage.

But laws that merely attempt to block certain people from marrying who just happen to be of the same sex, solve none of the real issues that cause marriages to dissolve.