Mawwiage...
Conservatives are funny people when it comes to marriage. The U.S. Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. DOMA basically says that neither states nor the federal government have to recognize same-sex marriages conducted in those states in which same-sex marriage is legal. Various states have rushed to change their state constitutions defining marriage as between one man and one woman, and there have even been lobbying efforts to change the U.S. Constitution to do the same. Marriage must be saved, and only a consitutional change can do it! But what happens when proposed legislation can actually, you know, affect our stalwart defenders of matrimony? You either hear crickets in lieu of support, or complete outrage that the gummint has the unmittigated chutzpa to interfere in private lives.
Obviously we uppity homos are mocking and destroying marriage by simply wishing to have our long-term relationships legally recognized so that we too can enjoy such marriage rights as being next of kin, hospital visitation, spousal insurance coverage. Actually, we can enjoy these things by throwing enough money at a lawyer. We get to spend hundreds of dollars to gain the same rights, which have still been fought successfully in the courts by family members. Currently, a marriage license in Texas can be obtained by any nabob with an extra $30 as long as the other person named on the license has a different set of chromosomes. Most straight people, even those with gay friends, seem to agree that marriage should be defined legally, and that definition should be one man and one woman.
Personally, I don't see how gays could harm marriage, much less ruin it. Seems to me like straight people have done a pretty good job of that on their own. After all, who coined the terms "marriage of convenience" and "quickie divorce?" Who can drunkenly drive through a wedding chapel in Vegas, be married by Elvis and receive a spouse and a handful of poker chips in return? Who can enjoy the benefits of a Russian mail-order bride (Call now, and receive the Ginsu knives FREE!)? Yet, somehow, conservatives believe "if gays are allowed to marry, the entire institution will crumble, so laws must be drafted! They must be stopped! Hrumph, hrumph, hrumph! What's that? A law in Texas, designed to strengthen marriage, has been proposed? That's wonderful! I'm all for it. Wait. It says what? You...you mean it affects me? Oh HELL no!"
What does this law do? In a nutshell, it doubles the cost of a marriage license unless happy couples take a premarital training course, in which case, the license is free. Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa said, "All we're asking the people of this state is that if you're going to get married, you need to know what's going to be expected of you during that marriage." I'm not a Chisum fan, nor do I believe protecting marriage is the job of the government, but I have to hand it to the ol' guy. He's trying protect marriage by asking people to, you know, learn what married life is all about before getting married. Suddenly the conservatives are all in an uproar that marriage is being stomped on by a meddling government. I am amazed by the about-face people can make when suddenly laws apply to them. Here are some excerpts from today's Letters to the Editor in the Houston Comical.
Did anyone really vote for a representative in the hope that our Texas government could engineer healthier marriages? That job is better left to churches.
Excellent question. May I ask you that the next time you ask for a Marriage Amendment?
The Constitution describes what the government should do and what it shouldn't. It should do only what the people cannot do for themselves. Otherwise, the government should not be involved.
There is no more sacrosanct contract than that of marriage. Chisum and Patrick have removed the sanctity of that contract, and now it will be just another contract to be overseen by the government.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
So, oh wise and all-knowing Conservatives, why is it that laws banning same-sex marriage will strengthen and protect marriage, while laws that give incentives for couples who take premarital training courses, thus learning about marriage and married life, are invasive? What's the matter? Scared of a little homework?