THERE IS NO SANCTITY IN MARRIAGE.

Medieval European Wedding 

Modern marriage in the U.S. and elsewhere has no sanctity. Actually, government-controlled marriage never did. It began as a male-curated legal instrument to control property, including wives and children. Gay marriage is simply a bow to the ludicrous nature of the institution in capitalist America where tax accountants and lawyers curate the bonds between human adults and their children.

Sanctity itself is in question today. It is an abstract derivative of orthodox religions which are more or less defunct. And that is indeed progress. Those religions have preached rigidity, elitism, racism, misogyny, homophobia, ethnocentrism and justifiable violence against the peaceful. All in the name of human-invented spooks. Whatever real spooks might exist in The Universe beyond human comprehension have been ignored or mocked by religions and media. They are indeed too scary for most to contemplate, as I have previously shared.

How about this idea? If heterosexuals want to reclaim marriage, as I wish they would, they might support legislation which revamps the concept. Here are my key suggestions:

1. Totally abolish the connection between religious (or other) rites and legal marriage contracts.

2. Require proof of a designated dollar amount of personal capital (equity) necessary for both partners to each individually possess in order to apply for a marriage license.

3. Only grant a marriage license to those partners who plan to parent children within a three-year period and sign a contract to that effect.

4. If no children are produced or adopted within that 3-year period, the marriage contract will automatically be annulled in the eyes of the government. No fault on either party's part. No unnecessary legal fees. A simple online form. If the two parties wish to renew the license for another three years under the same conditions, they should be allowed to do so with minimal red tape. They may renew the license in this manner throughout their marriage until they have children. Then the marriage falls under conditions in #5 below.

5. Legal marriages which produce offspring or legally adopted children within a 3-year marriage license period would thereafter be ineligible for divorce or legal separation until their youngest child turns eighteen.

6. Increase financial and/or criminal penalties (neglect, abandonment) for those who break the contract as described in #5 above.

7. Impose a lifetime legal-marriage ban on anyone who breaks the contract in #5 above or has children outside of legal marriage.

8. Eliminate all public financial assistance to those who have children outside legal marriage.

There is nothing draconian about these ideas. In fact, I would say they are progressive when compared to the current state of legal marriage. There is nothing here which would prevent anyone from living in commitment with another person of any age, race, nationality, sexuality or gender. This form of legal marriage would have no impact on a single woman's right to choose. If she were to choose single maternity, she would simply choose to pay for it and the resulting child's life support. 

Pro-life, pro-child advocates must see that this would put real grit into family values. The problems of single-parenting would be drastically diminished. Legal marriage would actually be an institution meant to insure the welfare of children as its central purpose. That seems to represent the ideals which religions have most recently preached but never actualized.