In Defense of Marriage

Since the late 1960’s, the strength of the Institution of Marriage has become compromised. In the complex fabric of Western Civilization, family and marriage run through each thread, and if their security is jeopardized, then the fabric and therefore our Civilization will fall apart. I believe that it is in the best interest of the United States Government to step in and begin to reverse decades of damage to the Institution of Marriage. The Government has a responsibility to ensure that the Institution of Marriage is protected from the variety of assaults that it faces today.

For the purposes of clarification, it is my assertion that government should define marriage as follows: Marriage should only consist of one man and one woman. It exists solely for the purpose of furthering the species and, providing stable, balanced homes for our children.

In order to fully understand the challenge that lies ahead, I must describe the various threats that the Institution of Marriage faces. It has become public knowledge that the divorce rate in the United States is a staggering 50%, with the average marriage ending after only 11 years. It is also reported that 38% of the children in this country live with at least 1 divorced parent. Even more of a concern is the number of people who have decided to live a life together, even having children, without ever entering into the covenant of marriage. Perhaps most significantly, the courts around our country have begun to hear cases questioning the constitutionality of not allowing two people of the same gender enter into marriage. Any attempt to repair and improve the condition of the Institution of Marriage in our Country must address all of these issues I have listed.

We must act as swiftly and broadly in the war on marriage as we have in the war on terror. I can not pretend that it will be easy to begin the reversal of decades of assaults on the Institution of Marriage, or that it will come without some sacrifices. However, we must act as a unified front defending, as an institution that defines who we are as a culture. If the definition and role of marriage is allowed to change, we will soon reap the consequences of a society that no longer values the traditional roles of men, women and children and instead makes its own rules on what constitutes a marriage.

Let me begin by addressing the issue of the high divorce rate, something I believe can be changed with two separate initiatives. First, by implementing Community Marriage Policies®, which have been enacted on city and county levels, nationally. These policies work by combining premarital counseling by members of the clergy, teaching couples skills to better their marriages, reconciling the separated, and reviving step families. They have, on average, been able to decrease divorce rates by 17.5%. Second, I believe that the states that have allowed no fault divorces must change their laws. Divorces should only be granted in the most extreme cases, such as abuse, neglect or infidelity. Even in those extreme cases, counseling by both clergy and psychotherapists should be required prior to any divorce being granted. By combining the elimination of no fault divorces and Community Marriage Policies® the government can prevent insatiable or unworthy couples from becoming married. By requiring counseling before divorce, the government can be sure that every opportunity has been given to make sure that no marriages end because of simple differences.

Next, I believe it is crucial that the government address the issue of the number of children being born out of wedlock and the alarming number of children living in a single parent household. It is essential to the success of our nation that every child have both a mother and a father living with them in their home. In order to try and strongly encourage parents from raising their children without two married parents, it is my proposal that the US Tax Code be altered to remove any child tax credits for persons who are not married. Single parents would be given one year from the change in the Tax Code to marry; if they fail to do so, then they will not be eligible for any child tax credit on their income taxes. Not only would this encourage parents to get married, it would give special financial rewards to those who decide to live within the confines of a marriage.

After we have established secure marriages, we must ensure that they are limited to only one man and one woman, not allowing same sex couples the ability to marry. In order to establish this premise while staying true to the United States Constitution, we must not allow any two persons to marry who are not willing or able to have a child. Effective immediately all states should be required to place a one year sunset clause on every marriage license issued. If the marriage fails to produce a child; it is annulled, revoking any and all rights associated with the marriage. This is to include any couples that may be physically incapable to produce children, as well as those who make the choice to not have children. The law would also require that the child born is the product of the two people in the marriage. No surrogate parents will be allowed. Thus the qualifying factor in whether or not two people may obtain a marriage license would be based solely on their willingness and ability to have children. When the legal basis of marriage becomes the propagation of the species and is applied equally, regardless of sexual orientation, then the constitutionality of now allowing same sex persons to marry can not be questioned.

Finally, it is vitally important to the success of the changes I have outlined here, that no sexual activity of any kind may be permitted outside the confines of marriage. Because sex is to be engaged in only for the purpose of creating a child, we must begin issuing and requiring Propagation Permits, available only to married persons, in order to engage in sexual activity. Any person found to be engaged in sexual activity not in possession of a Propagation Permit, may be ticketed, fined and even arrested. This final step is an important piece to close any possible loopholes in the law.

Now I realize that some of these measures may seem to be at the onset too drastic and perhaps even unconstitutional. Critics will say that these new laws limit people’s rights and give too much power and control to the government. Many will even say that the Federal Government does not have the authority to control marriage, that it is up to the States to decide marriage rights. To that I would argue that, the Federal Government must step in; marriage can no longer be left up to the States to govern. Under their leadership, marriage has become a mockery. In addition I believe that the simple loss of a few “civil liberties” would be a small price to pay for the future and stability of our society. We must give our local and national governments the tools to fight against those who wish to destroy the Institution of Marriage. If The Constitution does not currently give the Federal Government the power to protect marriage, then change it. Do what ever it takes to make these changes possible. Any attempt to protect marriage that falls short of what I have outlined here, would have less than desirable outcomes. It is my firm belief that once the benefits of these actions are weighed against the slight possibility of legal backlash, there can not be one single legitimate argument against what I have suggested here today.

The changes I have suggested here today are important, nay, necessary, to the future of our Nation. Not only would these broad sweeping changes have a positive effect on the Institution of Marriage and our families, the advantages would reach out to almost every aspect of our daily lives. With no children being born out of wedlock, the number of families on welfare would decrease significantly. By requiring Propagation Permits, and outlawing sexual activity outsides the confines of marriage, the legal questions over abortion rights will be null and void. We would be at a place and time in our Nation where every child would be a wanted child. Marriage and family will finally be given the special status and corresponding rights they deserve.

Now is the time to act. We can not afford to let the Institution of Marriage deteriorate any further. If we do not act now, the homosexual marriages taking place in Massachusetts will not be pushed into obscurity, but into the norm in many of our communities. Without the intervention of the Federal Government, unmarried persons will continue to have sexual relationships outside of marriage. Without the intervention of the Federal Government, people will further alter the definition of family to fit their needs. Most of all, without intervention of the Federal Government, the Institution of Marriage, as we know it today, will no longer exist.