TRULY defending the sanctity of marriage
(Has anyone properly traced the etymology of “infidel” and “infidelity?” Just asking. But I digress before I’ve had time to fully digress.)
Living in New York, as I do, I’m thankfully spared much of the election-day crappola. I mean, we all know how we’re voting here, and we’re widely conceived as miscreants and howling liberals, so why waste your campaign financing?
But I recognize that much of America will be voting this Tuesday — whether directly, as in Colorado, or indirectly — on the question of gay marriage; and I further recognize that, this being an even-numbered year, many, many constituencies are lamenting the sanctity of marriage — demanding that we defend it, or protect it, or amend the Constitution to define it.
I support gay marriage — hell, I’ve even attended a gay marriage — so I have some difficulty understanding why anyone would come out against it; but, while we’re lamenting marriage’s apparent frailty, I might propose an alternative legal means of satisfying everyone:
Allow gay marriage, just as we allow straight marriage — only, disallow divorce. You can marry anyone you like (I guess there’s not much debate regarding polygamy), but it’s for keeps. I just figure, with the divorce rate steadily climbing, there’s the real culprit. How can you bemoan the sanctity of marriage (however you choose to define “marriage”) if you’re tacitly allowing that union to be dissolved?
Problem solved. Feel free to consider me a write-in candidate.
