If we’re going to defend hetero marriage, let’s do it right.

Folks opposed to marriage equality argue that if gays and lesbians are permitted that state-sanctioned status, it will have the effect of destroying heterosexual marriages.  In response, they promote legislation ostensibly designed to protect this venerable institution.  Most liberals campaign against these measures, on the grounds that they are unfair (what part of “equal protection of the laws” is unclear?) and irrational (straights have done a pretty good job of marriage destruction all on their own).

My view is:  if we’re going to use the legislative process to protect heterosexual marriages, let’s pass laws that might actually reduce stress and promote harmony in those marriages.  These measures would “save” those marriages in the sense that the people in them would remain happy with one another and therefore married, rather than in the way that opponents of gay marriage think it works:  that we’ll only stay together if we can smugly monopolize the legal label for our relationships.

Warning:  what follows traffics in the basest of gender stereotypes, derived directly from my own 16-year experience with heterosexual marriage.

The Bathroom Separation Act.  Men and women were not meant to share bathrooms.  The vast genetic differences in cleanliness perception and many practical differences in paraphernalia make sharing facilities a source of stress in 55% of heterosexual marriages.*  Under this proposed legislation, all new homes will be required to have two completely separate bathrooms adjacent to the master bedroom and money will be allocated from the federal budget to retrofit houses of married heteros with one extra master bath.

The Laundry Technology Act.  All new washers and dryers will be equipped with control panels of equal or greater complexity to a sound system of comparable price.  In addition, federal regulations will require garment labels to include one of the following two statements, as appropriate:  “This Goes In the Light Wash,” or “This Goes In the Dark Wash.”  At least 43%* of the bickering in hetero marriages concerns lack of laundry participation by one of the two genders commonly found in those unions.  This measure will not only promote increased participation, but will ensure that the result is not uniformly pink.

Music Parity Regulations.  FCC regulations will require at least one station in each broadcast area to play folk rock and heavy metal tunes on a strictly alternating basis.  Imagine the heterosexual marriages — not to mention lives — saved by not having driver and passenger switching constantly among stations in search of (to take a completely random example) Boston or The Indigo Girls.

Quality Motion Picture Act.  At least five movies each year will be required to have both exciting action sequences (car chases; explosions; zombies) and a plot with believable, grown-up dialog and characters.  Hetero marriages will flourish when husbands and wives not only attend but enjoy the same movies.

Full Funding for Public Education, Universal Health Care and Assisted Living Act.  Approximately 95%* of the fights in heterosexual marriages concern the kids’ schools, the doctor’s bills, and how to care for the in-laws without having them actually move in.  The FFPEUHCALA will ensure high quality public education, availability of heath care without forgoing food and heat, and a comfortable, safe old age for your in-laws** somewhere other than your home.  This legislation will avoid at least 3.2 million* heterosexual divorces each year.  In addition, just imagine all the quality time hetero couples will have in lieu of the hundreds of hours they now spend filling out insurance forms, fighting with insurance companies, filling out more forms, waiting on hold to insurance companies, and figuring out how to pay for things they already bought insurance to pay for.

Let’s see if those anti-marriage-equality folks really want to protect hetero marriage — let’s see if they’ll support all this crucial legislation.

* All statistics in this post are invented out of whole cloth.  They sure sound about right, though, don’t they?

** Love ya, Denver & Nora!

10 thoughts on “If we’re going to defend hetero marriage, let’s do it right.

  1. Marcus

    How about the Divorce Prohibition Act. Prohibit divorce under every circumstance. Until then, as long as heterosexuals are allowed to get divorced and remarried, divorced and remarried, divorced and remarried, then laws protecting the institution of marriage from the scourge of gay unions should not be enforced.

    Like

    Reply
    1. amyfarr Post author

      That would be the ultimate anti-hypocrisy legislation, but I fear determined heteros would simply turn to increasingly baroque murder plots. That’s the downside. The upside would be a new set of headlines for Law & Order to rip from.

      Like

      Reply
  2. Duncan North

    Brilliant!
    Only one minor comment/criticism, regarding the Quality Motion Picture Act.
    Die Hard 1, Die Hard 2, The Rock and countless other action movies use romantic relationships as major plot points, ending with the man and woman kissing each other. John McClain goes to LA to save his marriage in DH 1, he goes to Washington to visit his in-laws in DH 2, and Nicolas Cage finds out his girlfriend is pregnant and proposes at the beginning of the Rock.
    I assert there is gender disparity in films today, since “chick stuff” like romance and relationships regularly infiltrates action film plot lines.
    If there is to be a Quality Motion Picture Act, it should mandate that films like Little Miss Sunshine and The Notebook include at least one car chase, one explosion, and one gun fight.
    Obviously, period films like Elizabeth and The Young Victoria present unique problems with car chases and really good explosions. Period films should be offered and exemption from the 3 bang rule, but only if they include a minimum of five minutes of gratuitous female nudity.
    This is a simple fix, and historically accurate, as people back in the day had bodies and often did not wear clothing. In fact, I think the lack of female nudity in period films is a crass, commercial attempt by filmmakers to attract female audiences, while marginalizing men.

    Like

    Reply
    1. amyfarr Post author

      Horse-drawn carriage chases and beheadings won’t do it for you? (BTW, the spell checker does not like the plural of “beheading” — also sexist?)

      Like

      Reply
  3. Robin Bolduc

    Have you done a cost analysis of each piece of legislation? They won’t pass if you don’t justify them without a reduction in the federal budget, so funds can be used more “effectively” somewhere else – like bombing 3rd world countries to promote democracy.

    Like

    Reply
  4. Ruth

    You forgot the Mandatory Separate Computers Act. Approximately 73% of hetero marriages that end in divorce*, do so because the couple are forced to share a computer. The law should provide that, if the couple cannot afford a second computer, the government will provide the funding for it. This funding can also come, as Robin suggests, from no longer bombing 3rd world countries into democracy.

    The MSCA is as important as the BSA (Bathroom Separation Act), and it’s possible they they could be combined in conference committee in one, overall act.

    * my stats come from the same place Amy’s come from

    Like

    Reply
  5. Corbett

    As a queer in a non-government-sanctioned committed-until-one-of-us-dies relationship (YAY!), I applaud Amy’s attempt to identify key pieces missing from current government-defined legal relationships.

    However, for those of you who cling tight to the belief that relationship on the other side of the sexual spectrum are free of hetero nonsense, I must disappoint you. Yes, we have the enlightenment to prepare for separation from the moment of sexual connection. We maintain separate computers, friends, and laundry preferences in anticipation of one day being uncoupled.

    But if we slide into coupleness, we share much of the same discord as the hets. Is one partner sports-oriented and the other sports-intolerant? What is the acceptable level of sexual separation – full monogamy? Monogamy with occasional dalliances? Open relationship?

    The younger queers are exploding older, more rigid lines of gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and merging us all into “queers” who may or may not have sexual preferences within their (ever so fluid) gender(s). Twenty years ago I was a white disabled lesbian. Now I am a queer with a twisted body who embraces people across diverse body and gender spectrums.

    It seems to me that relationships are getting more and more complicated – whether government recognized or not. Guess that’s why many folks opt out of them as we age. Or maybe they are just bored.

    Like

    Reply
  6. amyfarr Post author

    You mean you take time out from recruiting young people to the homosexual agenda to do things like argue over the remote or the laundry? What busy lives you must lead!!

    Seriously, though, I love the idea of embracing people across diverse body and gender spectrums. Let’s get rid of the cubbyholes of the old language and realize that we’re all on the human spectrum — gender, orientation, color, religion, body shape & abilities — together.

    Like

    Reply
  7. Laura Schwartz

    Instead of separate bathrooms, a thought I completely agree with, I have always believed in separate households.

    Like

    Reply
  8. Pingback: Thank you, President Obama & a re-run « Thought Snax

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s