If I were an efficiency consultant . . .

. . . and the National Organization for Marriage told me that their number one goal was to create a wall around marriage as the union of a man and woman “to promote naturally procreative sexual activity in a stable and enduring relationship,” here is a list of things I would recommend they target before even getting anywhere near gays. Again, this is purely from a let’s-take-them-at-their-word standpoint. If that’s the end goal — a man, a woman, children or at least attempting to have children in a “naturally procreative way,” then here’s what they should really be after:

  1. Ban divorce. Approximately 50% of married heterosexuals divorce. This means that even if every homosexual in the country married another homosexual, these unions would be numerically insignificant when compared to the marriages destroyed by divorce. And unlike gay marriage, divorce can be demonstrated to actually have an adverse affect on marriage in that it destroys a previously existing traditional marriage.
  2. Ban birth control, fertility treatments, and all forms of abortion. If “naturally procreative” processes are the ideal, than any artificial meddling in the process of sex, conception, and childbirth should be prohibited. To be really safe, you could also consider banning unnatural processes like Caesarean sections and epidurals.
  3. Mandate that unwed couples who become pregnant marry. In fact, since traditional marriage is what we’re after, make extramarital sex illegal. Saudi Arabia has some great laws regarding this topic if you need some ideas.
  4. Confiscate the children of single parents and place them in homes where traditional marriage is honoured. After all, nobody raised by a single mom could possibly come out normal. As the Prop 8 folks have been saying all along, kids need a mommy AND a daddy. Think of the kids.
  5. Make adultery a crime. How much more can you assault your marriage than by having sex with someone who isn’t your spouse? If you really want to protect marriage, you should be in favour of throwing cheating spouses in jail. In fact, maybe we should just reinstate the Biblical recommendation of the death penalty, since the definition of marriage we’re protecting is from the Bible anyway.

Then, and only then, would I recommend that the National Organization for Marriage and ProtectMarriage.com should bother turning their attention to homosexuals. It’s really just a numbers game — with any project you should always tackle the biggest blockers to your objective first, then turn to the little cleanup projects like, say, the two percent of the population who aren’t involved in “traditional marriage” anyway.

Because really, once you think about it, divorce, infidelity, unwed parents, step-parenting, and extramarital sex are statistically far more common than homosexual marriage ever could be. Even if it could be proven the homosexual marriage was slightly more harmful to children and society than any of these heterosexual shortcomings, the sheer numbers of cheating husbands and broken homes kind of overshadows any possible effect that lesbian soccer moms could have on America.

And yet, as we see in the Prop 8 trial, these die-hard traditionalists won’t touch any of these issues with a ten foot pole, despite the fact that it would be much easier to argue their “adverse effect” on traditional marriage, children, and families. You’re never going to see a propaganda ad on TV with some mopey mom whining that she worries about raising her daughter in a world where divorce is OK.

Here’s hoping that, as the trial coverage is showing, the people from ProtectMarriage.com will continue to reveal themselves for the bigoted hypocrites that they are.

8 thoughts on “If I were an efficiency consultant . . .

  1. I assume you’re joking, but I’ll just point out one counterargument anyway: Your suggestions only increase the quantity of marriages, at the detriment of their quality.

    Of course the NOM’s goals already have nothing to do with the quality of the marriage — or at least they see love, support, and companionship as being secondary concerns compared to whether or not there’s “natural procreation” going on…

    • Well, yeah, I think the sarcasm is self-evident. But I’ve never gotten the impression that Prop 8 had anything to do with improving the quality of heterosexual unions. It’s about making sure that the traditional definition of marriage is codified into law. And it doesn’t get any more “traditional” according to these folks than one man, one woman, and naturally born children. Just look at the Prop 8 logo. That leaves some pretty chilling implications for the adopted, the divorced, the artificially conceived, the artificially aborted, the remarried, the single, and the widowed. If you just look at it from a legalistic standpoint, all of those people are just as much of an aberration as homosexual couples.

      • So true.

        So often the people arguing to “defend (heterosexual) marriage” seem to regard marriage as an odious duty that people wouldn’t do without coercion. As I said in a book review, here, If my own impression of marriage were as bleak and depressing as theirs, I sure as hell wouldn’t be defending the institution, much less getting mixed up in a marriage myself.

        • Ha! You raise a really interesting point that I hadn’t ever thought of before. The biggest anti-gay types that I personally know also frequently badmouth traditional marriage. They talk about marriage as the end of all fun, refer to the wife as the ball and chain, and so on. It just clicked — the more homophobic a guy is, the more sexist he is, and more likely to speak sarcastically or frivolously of marriage. I’ll have to mull that one around a bit more . . .

  2. I’d add, to that list,

    * Mandating some proof of fertility before marriage (i.e. no infertile couples)
    * Confiscate children of divorced parents.
    * Require some sort of “ready for marriage” test.

  3. What I want to know is: why is separation of church and state such a hard concept to grasp? Theoretically, at least, it shouldn’t matter whether one religious group thinks it’s a “sin” or not, because religious convictions shouldn’t enter into it. Why does nobody understand this?

    I wrote about this issue on my blog today, and got a speech about the “sin of Sodom” for my trouble.

  4. What’s even more annoying is that if you read the entire Bible, it actually specifies what the “sin” of Sodom was: inhospitality. Sexual assault was both a serious crime in the ancient world, as well as a metaphor for inhospitality (as it was used to assert dominance over unwanted “guests”, or potential invaders). Anyway, I wrote a book about it, although my agent has so far despaired of finding me a non-academic publisher.

    Hey, if you really want to insult your intelligence, and grow stupider, read the comment exchange on my post, “My Immoral Gay Rights ‘Agenda'”. Previous to this, the worst insults I’d received were that I was stupid, old looking, fat, ugly, and shamelessly self-promoting–now I can add apostate to the list!

    It’s experiences like these that make me absolutely, 100% understand why people leave the church screaming.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s