Fair warning: this is not a typical Laura Shunk post.  I have a political issue I want to pop off about, and you, faithful readers and wonderful listeners, are the lucky recipients of this rant.

I’m really into this.

For those of you who don’t wish to navigate away from my page to read this delightful article, I’ll summarize: John Marcotte, a Californian, is proposing a ban on divorce be put on the next ballot.

Don’t stress; I haven’t suddenly gone all Focus on the Family. The reasoning:  if gays aren’t allowed to marry because marriage is sacred, then heterosexual couples shouldn’t be able to divorce because marriage is sacred.

I’m gonna pause to let the deliciousness of that sink in.

.

.

.

I obviously like this for many reasons. First off, this is the kind of brilliant stunt that just makes me feel warm and toasty for humanity: if you can’t beat the system, show the system how stupid it is. I like that. The proposition is extra fun because it’s being embraced by people on both side of the debate: those who see the joke, and those who don’t. Several political organizations are all about it because they think a union before God should be more difficult to break. Of course it should be. Loveless married couples should clearly be made to suffer. There’ll be rewards of the afterlife, after all.

Second, Marcotte skillfully calls out the hypocrisy that dominates the gay marriage law debate. One of the arguments against gay marriage, and likely the one that more moderate constituents use to justify their vote, is that it creates new legal headaches because it forms a new class of entitlements. Nice try, but this is still a thinly veiled family values argument. If we’re really concerned with further litigation, it seems we should be working to eliminate marriage as a protected class altogether, thus putting everyone on the same footing and freeing up the courts.

Suddenly, the justification for protecting the heterosexual couple becomes reproduction. Yes, reproduction. We’re so concerned about a population constriction that we need to protect married couples for reproductive purposes. Doesn’t the logic then follow that we should punish those married couples who choose not to have children? Or reward gay couples that choose to adopt or have children through a surrogate? Logic, it seems, is not the basis for these arguments. I know, I know, it’s faith. No use arguing with faith.

My favorite implication of Marcotte’s legislation is the shitshow that will ensue if it passes. Can you imagine a California without divorce? What will happen to the mid-life crisis victims, looking for a sports car and trophy wife? What about the gold-diggers? And worst of all, what’s going to happen to Hollywood? I, for one, will dearly miss my weekly 5 minutes in the supermarket checkout line, perusing tabloid headings that document the woes of divorce of the rich and famous. Think about it: Brad and Jennifer together forever, Britney and K-Fed ordered to work it out, and Whitney Houston forced to stay with Bobby Brown despite the abuse. There’d be no TomKat, since Tom would be unable to divorce Nicole, and also no Ashton and Demi, since they’d be unable to get rid of Bruce. Goodbye, People Magazine. Goodbye, Us Weekly. Hollywood’s going wholesome. Your services are no longer needed.

sorry, kids, you're f-ed

Just another risk we have to take, by god, to preserve the sanctity of marriage.