Friday, February 23, 2007
Protect Marriage, Outlaw Adultery
The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance has filed a state initiative to annul marriages if couples don't have children within three years.
The proponents are striking back at the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1998 to limit marriage to heterosexual couples in Washington state. The state Supreme Court, which upheld the law last summer, mentioned the government's interest in procreation.
Everyone agrees the new initiative is absurd. But it got me thinking: What is the best way to defend and protect the sanctity of marriage? At first, I thought of a ban on televised sports, but I could find no theological support for that idea.
Then it hit me: Adultery. The Bible has plenty to say against adultery. Even one of the commandments forbids it.
This led me to a modest proposal: Let's urge politicians to take a stand on the issue - before they are caught. Are they pro-adultery or anti-adultery? If lawmakers can propose a constitutional amendment to make it illegal to burn a flag, if they can try to roll back privacy rights, then why can't we make it a felony to commit adultery?
The state could issue a license plate that says, "Faithful." The proceeds could go to programs on fidelity. If we can give poor people incentives to marry, why can't we give people a tax credit if they can avoid cheating for a year?
I expect all those who are anti-adultery to protest in front of strip clubs, lingerie-modeling shops, so-called massage parlors, Cape Canaveral and other places where sin may occur. Perhaps we can chain ourselves to the doors.
All churches that are anti-adultery should give time and money to this campaign.
I understand temptation. But I went through a reorientation camp where I learned to change my desires. Once I find out that a gorgeous hunk of man flesh is married, I no longer feel any interest in him whatsoever. I have been cured of this sin.
Perhaps some of you think I'm being absurd. But if preservation of marriage is so important, why don't politicians go after adultery? Is it because they fear their life will be scrutinized? Would this issue be less popular among their supporters?
Suzie Siegel is a former Tribune reporter.
The proponents are striking back at the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1998 to limit marriage to heterosexual couples in Washington state. The state Supreme Court, which upheld the law last summer, mentioned the government's interest in procreation.
Everyone agrees the new initiative is absurd. But it got me thinking: What is the best way to defend and protect the sanctity of marriage? At first, I thought of a ban on televised sports, but I could find no theological support for that idea.
Then it hit me: Adultery. The Bible has plenty to say against adultery. Even one of the commandments forbids it.
This led me to a modest proposal: Let's urge politicians to take a stand on the issue - before they are caught. Are they pro-adultery or anti-adultery? If lawmakers can propose a constitutional amendment to make it illegal to burn a flag, if they can try to roll back privacy rights, then why can't we make it a felony to commit adultery?
The state could issue a license plate that says, "Faithful." The proceeds could go to programs on fidelity. If we can give poor people incentives to marry, why can't we give people a tax credit if they can avoid cheating for a year?
I expect all those who are anti-adultery to protest in front of strip clubs, lingerie-modeling shops, so-called massage parlors, Cape Canaveral and other places where sin may occur. Perhaps we can chain ourselves to the doors.
All churches that are anti-adultery should give time and money to this campaign.
I understand temptation. But I went through a reorientation camp where I learned to change my desires. Once I find out that a gorgeous hunk of man flesh is married, I no longer feel any interest in him whatsoever. I have been cured of this sin.
Perhaps some of you think I'm being absurd. But if preservation of marriage is so important, why don't politicians go after adultery? Is it because they fear their life will be scrutinized? Would this issue be less popular among their supporters?
Suzie Siegel is a former Tribune reporter.
