Eric Shaw Quinn

I’m really worried about the sacred institution of marriage.

Recent court rulings, relying on liberal notions like the bill of rights and the US Constitution, have ruled that the Federal Government and ballot initiatives cannot be used to effect discrimination.  That’s right, the United States Government cannot compel Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens.  What’s more, a minister from Maryland does not have the right to call for a vote to bring discrimination back to the city of Washington, DC.

Can’t they see that these people are only trying to defend marriage? This sacred institution is the foundation of civilization as we know it – and look how well that’s going!

I think that something needs to be done at once to preserve this blessed bond, this holy contract.

The problem in keeping marriage as it is seems to me to be the laws.

Marriage has become entangled with all these legal rights and privileges.  As a result, the courts and the laws get all involved.

So, here’s what I think we should do.  I propose founding the Society for the Preservation of the Sacred Institution of Marriage.  Our organization’s primary focus should be to divest marriage of all these legal entanglements so that the courts will be powerless to deface this hallowed union.

It all begins and ends with death and taxes, it seems to me.  Taxes are particularly insidious where marriage is concerned.  There are so many so-called tax benefits attached to marriage it’s easy to miss the government intrusion.  To keep the union of one man and one woman sacred, we must do away with all tax law impinging on marriage.   No more joint filings, everyone files separately.  The benefits of having the option to file jointly do not apply.  Who cares that the majority of married couples save money by filing jointly?  Paying higher taxes is a small price to pay to preserve marriage and keep the courts out of our homes and bedrooms.  Why shouldn’t spouses be taxed individually for their share of business income? Who needs child tax credits? It’s all just a way for the government to get their fingers on marriage.

Of course we would do away with notions of the rights to inheritance, joint property or the transfer of pensions and Federal benefits.  Bereaved spouses will find the extra taxes at the time of the loss of their loved one a comfort that further consecrates their marriage vows.  What is the shared work of a lifetime and financial security in old age compared to the peace of mind gained from the certain knowledge that marriage is only between one man and one woman? Widows and Widowers of federal employees, office holders and veterans will be able to hold their heads up proudly in the breadline, knowing that their marriage was pure and sacred and totally not gay.

Certainly we’d want to keep the INS out of marriage vows.  The promise of spousal citizenship is just another clever trap to bring legal encumbrances into marriage and allow the courts to dilute this sacred rite.  Deportation is such an ugly word.  Living separately has led to the long term success of many marriages.

And Divorce? This one seems the most obvious.  Divorce is a boondoggle to the legal profession and a real stumbling block to keeping marriage sanctified.  The bible really only makes divorce available to men and then only when a wife has been unfaithful, so who needs the courts involved in that? Let’s keep it consecrated.  Let the church do it.  Let the Pope or Oral Roberts or Jimmy Swaggart or the Ayatollah decide who gets the house.  And custody? If we can’t trust a priest to do what’s best for the children, who can we trust?

Sure the GAO says marriage confers over 1100 specials rights, benefits and privileges to those who invoke those blessed vows, but that’s a GOVERNMENT agency! We want government out of the business of telling us who we can and can’t marry, right? So who needs the rights of joint custody or the adoption of children? They’re God’s children, let Him take care of them.  And as a man and a woman, united by God, it’s always possible to have more.

The rights of next of kin are really only good for getting in to see your spouse in the hospital, but hospitals are so depressing.  You might catch what your loved one has.  True, it might seem helpful to be able to make decisions regarding the health and well being of a wife or husband who is ill or incapacitated, but isn’t it more important to make sure that not just anyone can get married? I mean, you may lose the right to decide where or how your beloved’s remains are handled after death, but they’re dead anyway.  They can rest in peace knowing that the blessed, sacred bond of marriage is only available to one man and one woman.

And game show contestants.