Political cures that may be worse than the disease Vol.1: Gay Marriage

The two catchphrases I keep hearing in regards to gay marriage, or more to the point AGAINST gay marriage are "traditional marriage" and "sanctity of marriage".

The problem I have with the term "traditional marriage" is that it is completely meaningless. To me, in order for something to become traditional, it has to have occurred the exact same way many times over. Show me any two marriages that are exactly alike. Sure, they may have several things in common between them, but there's always something that one married person will say to another married person about their respective unions that will sound completely alien to the other. The only real tradition that exists in all marriages is the signing of a wedding license. Up until the 1950's that same term was used to try and dissuade people from marrying outside their race, so how is that supposed to be an argument against gay marriage today?

Okay, on to the second catchphrase: "sanctity of marriage". I find it tronic that many of the pundits and politicians that use that phrase are on their second or third spouse, sometimes beyond that. They claim that if gays and lesbians were allowed to wed, that somehow it would be a threat to straight marriages. They say the divorce rate would rise, that it would be traumatic to any children that came about, etc. As if straight couples, just by virtue of being married, are immune from ever breaking up or screwing up their kids.

So, in the interest of some resolution to this debate, may I suggest the following compromise. Let gays and lesbians get married, but in the interest of "traditional marriage" and the "sanctity of marriage", outlaw divorce.

And to up the ante, and in an attempt to put these political talking heads' money where their mouths are, make the new divorce law retroactive. Any person who has been married more than once are automatically married to their earliest still-living spouse, as if the subsequent marriages never took place. The only way out would be death or annullment, which in keeping with the sprit of the "sanctity of marriage" now will cost one million dollars for each year since the beginning of the marriage.

Let's look at the pros and cons of this plan:

Pro: Half the lawyers in this country will be out of work.

Con: Murder rates would skyrocket.

Pro: Many of those murders would abusive husbands whose wives have long since wised up and are NOT gonna take their shit anymore.

Con: Many of those murders would be the abused wives.

Pro: The murdering husbands would go to jail, where thanks to their muscle-bound, maladjusted cellmate, they would be intruduced to the newly-revised concept of being a prison bride.

Con: The courts would be flooded with child custody hearings from all of the marriages that have been judged null and void.

Pro: The revenue generated from the new anullment costs would take care of the national budget deficit within a year. Trust me, people would FIND the money for the anullment if the marriage was bad enough.

Con: Ironically enough, once the deficit is taken care of, any money that comes in would go to fund whatever war we get involved in next.

Pro: If we play our cards right, that extra cash might go towards education.

Con: Life insurance rates would go through the roof.

Pro: Couples might think a little more clearly about getting married in the first place.

Con: Cheaters would no longer learn their lesson by losing half their stuff in a divorce.

Pro: On the other hand, cheaters would be bound by law to have their lives made a living hell by their angry spouse.

Con: Given the number of divorces we've had in the past few decades, many people affected by the law would usher in a new era of bitterness and cynicism and make the sancity of marriage seem more like a curse.

Gee, wouldn't be a whole hell of a lot easier to just let gays and lesbians get married?