I've come up with a constitutional amendment that I think would be extremely beneficial to our nation, and I ask for your support.
In recent discussions regarding same sex marriage it was pointed out to me that the State does indeed have compelling secular interests in regulating marriage. I had mistakenly thought that religious fundamentalists were trying to impose their bigotry. Now I learn that the primary argument is in fact the promotion and protection of procreation! Since homosexuals are unable to procreate on their own, and same sex marriage would place extra financial burden on the state in the form of Social Security benefits and the like, it is perfectly within the State's right to prohibit them from marrying.
Here is an excellent link that explains the secular rationale behind outlawing gay marriage.
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html . These are all great arguments, however, I did find one critical flaw. The writer points out that it would simply be too much of a burden on the state to try and weed out infertile couples, since fertility tests are expensive and most people are unaware that they are infertile. I agree. But, he also argues that elderly marriage is so rare that it too would not be worth the effort to restrict. And this is where I find the flaw!
The State does have a vested interest in restricting marriage between the elderly - specifically that of elderly women! While men are able to father healthy children throughout their entire lives, women have limited reproductive lives. And after menopause they are effectively useless with respect to procreation. Beyond this, the marriage of older women places a large financial burden on the State and on business. Postmenopausal women accrue their husbands Social Security and pension benefits without providing any benefit to the State in the way of bearing children. Letting them marry is simply a liability to society.
Unlike weeding out infertile young couples, it would be absolutely no extra effort to prohibit postmenopausal women from marrying, since we already require proof of age to obtain a marriage license. The State will benefit and save money with no extra burden! We could limit the marriage age for women to below 50 years. The vast majority of women above 50 are postmenopausal. And those who are not place another potentially large burden on society if they choose to have children, because their rates of genetic and congenital defects are very high - even much higher than that of close relatives bearing children. And we already restrict marriage between close relatives on this basis.
So, considering all these facts, I conclude that the people of the United States have a vested interest, even a moral obligation, to restrict older women from marrying. And from the lessons learned in the fight against same sex marriage, it is pretty clear that it's simply not enough to pass legislation. The courts will ultimately strike down these laws on the basis of equal protection and other constitutional grounds. So, we need to go directly to the source and pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, if we hope to reap these great benefits to society. Therefore, I have drafted this simple, concise, and unquestionably beneficial amendment:
The State, having a vested interest in the promotion and protection of procreation, limits the age of marriage for women to those older than 16 years and younger than 50 years.I ask all of you with high moral values to rally behind me in my effort to pass this critical amendment! Thank you for your support!
Author
Topic: Please Support My Constitutional Amendment to Protect Marriage! (Read 3852 times)