Kirby: Let's get serious about sanctity of marriage
After last week's column about my less-than-conservative stand on gay marriage, I heard from people (two) who expressed disappointment.
According to a guy at Wal-Mart, I was only going along with gay marriage because I was "a liberal" and it was "politically correct" to do so.
He might be right. I do all kinds of stuff that I don't put a lot of thought into. Ask my wife (boss, doctor, bishop, neighbors, police, parents, Sonny, etc.).
However, as I gladly pointed out to the guy, it was far more likely that he was simply being "fecally correct."
Translation: an opinion supported by nothing more than being full of [poo].
Back to the part about me being wrong. Marriage is extremely important. We can all agree that it should not be entered into lightly. Moreover, it is not for everyone. Nor should it be.
This is true whether marriage is viewed from the point of being "biologically correct" or "religiously correct." Or socially correct, legally correct, priggishly correct, idiotically correct, etc.
Regardless of what the U.S. Supreme Court decides about gay marriage, now is an excellent moment for all of us to prove just how serious we are about protecting the sanctity of marriage.
For starters, there should be a marriage test. Currently, any two fools can get married. As I wrote in another politically correct column (Oct. 25, 2008): "You should have to pass a harder test to get married than the one we currently have. Essentially, there are but two questions: 'How old are you?' and 'Is that your sister?' Hell, you could pass this test just by guessing."
Along that line, marriage applicants should be required to take an IQ test. What could be more harmful to society (or God's plan) than letting two morons get married and start a family?
Marital applicants should have to provide a DNA sample and a genealogy report. That way we would all know just how far back on your bloodline you're marrying into.
Getting married should also cost more. A wedding license in Salt Lake County costs $40. This is a drain on society.
Considering the toll bad marriages right now entirely the fault of heterosexuals exact on society, it's fair that we start requiring a marital cash bond. Something along the lines of $100,000.
If your marriage ends in a criminal matter, several criminally inclined children, a reality show or something else the rest of us have to pay for, we could recover our costs.
I'm thinking (a dangerous thing) that a strictly heterosexual marriage law should require marital applicants to submit proof that they are of opposite genders. No more taking anybody's word for it.
Explicit photographs notarized by a doctor proving which gender the applicant is would have to accompany the proper paperwork.
Religious people would want this safeguard as well. In 1995, a couple had their 3 Â½ year civil marriage sealed in the Salt Lake Temple. The problem which didn't arise until later was that the woman wasn't a woman.
Felix Urioste not only managed to convince his naÃ¯ve "husband" that he was a woman, but his ecclesiastical authority as well. Prior proof would keep this from happening again. Probably. Maybe.
Finally, we need a probationary period. A marriage doesn't actually become a legal marriage until a couple stands the test of time. Fifteen years ought to do it.
These proposed marriage protections are highly intrusive, but that's OK. We live in a society where everyone else's business is our business as well.
Robert Kirby can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org or facebook.com/stillnotpatbagley.
See more about comments here.