Will divorce between heterosexuals be illegal?

OK, so Rep. LaVar Christensen (R-Draper) wants to introduce a bill to say that hetersexual marriage is a “fundimental unit of society,” claiming it predates government, even, and much else.

(An aside — how fundimental? In Genesis most of the marriages are plural and then some — sex with wife’s handmaidens is common. Does he include that?¬† Just asking….)

There’s a story here (click) but the idea of legally saying some particular¬†sort of marriage is critical to society leads to some interesting speculation.

First, seeing as how half of all marriages end in divorce, it seems to be that society’s fundiment is built on sand, at best.

Second, if we’re going to make something that important to society in law, should we not add some enforcement to keep that fundimental unit — and by extension society as a whole — from falling apart?

I think so. So I await Rep. Christensen’s companion bill to this making divorce illegal except under some very restrictive circumstances, such as fraud or proven abuse.

We also need a bill to make all marriages subject to government oversight and regulation. If the government regulates pickles and hot dogs because bad pickles and hotdogs are bad for society as a whole, it certainly needs to keep an eye on something as fundimental as marriage, just to make sure nobody’s letting things slip. Spouse abuse would be particularly punished, but failure to hug your husband or wife could be a misdemeanor.

Yeah, I see nothing but good from this whole enterprise.

This entry was posted in Blogging the Rambler and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Will divorce between heterosexuals be illegal?

  1. Doug Gibson says:

    I suppose I agree in principle with LaVar, but I can’t see why it’s needed to be sanctioned by a pol, or pols, in an elected body that serves on our dime.

  2. D. Michael Martindale says:

    I think we need to criminalizd bad spelling too, because it hurts society when people think the spelling for “fundamental” is “fundimental.”

  3. ctrentelman says:

    be glad i wasnt thinking of the Bay of Fundy

  4. ZENNEPHI says:

    In undifferentiated realms of Church/State affairs in the [Beehive-
    State],SSDI>Same “sects” dynamic Issues are at the core of Hetero
    unrest, and bewilderment; and for just cause.
    Weather civil or church sanctioned, a Man and Wife marriage is a
    “weld” that should be protected despite the tempest of unwelcomed
    attraction, in the indoctornation of there offspring.
    As towit [Homo] inclinations may be “tendered” on the [Homefront] in
    our Children who “fear the unknown”, however we Adults, especially
    Christian Males, find that no matter how liberated we profess to be;
    Overt actions “rear there Ugly Heads” on our own latencies. These
    from households’ that never enjoyed the “Joys/Heartfelt” sorrows of
    a “Nucleaur-Family”.

    Be Good.

  5. Sylvia says:

    The stat about half of marriages ending in divorce is a disputed one. It comes from adding up every marriage in a year and then every divorce i the same year–not a very accurate measurement. I have read other stats–figured in much more complex ways that I don’t now recall–that put it closer to 23 percent.
    Other than that, I do not disagree with your claims. The state of Utah requires couples who are divorcing to take a class that pretty much tries to tell that not to use their children against each other. If we can require this from divorcing couples, why not a class for couples applying for a marriage license?

  6. JohnP says:

    If something like this became law, and affected heterosexuals in any way (common in these far-overreaching anti-gay bills) they will just amend it so it only harms gays and their kids. Nothing new.

    I doubt it will become law though, or at least for long. The government can’t typically invalidate private contracts, like wills or medical directives, of anyone … not to mention a whole minority of people they want to single out and persecute. Very few things are so blatantly unconstitutional.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>