I’ve had a conversion. Frankly, people have been taking the fucking piss out of marriage for too fucking long. Previously, I was of the opinion that marriage should be simply the union of two people who love each other. A public promise to care for each other – attending to each other’s needs, sharing their property, speaking for each other should one lose their voice – and a way to knit that relationship into the fabric of extended family.
But now I know that I was desperately, calamitously wrong. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman for the purposes of raising children. I’m almost embarrassed that it’s taken me so long to see, but finally I understand: the objections to same-sex marriage aren’t based on some skin-itching revulsion at the thought of two men bashing their hairy balls together, or two women wetly smooching their labia. No, no, no. The people who are invested in a traditional definition of marriage are so much more than homophobes.
Of course, now I understand this, I see that the problem is much bigger than even the severest critics of same-sex marriage have yet acknowledged. The institution of marriage has been perverted until it barely resembles an infant-generation module at all. The deluded rhetoric of “love” and “companionship” has infected the institution.
All supporters of pure, traditional unions must then join me in calling for the extinction of every heretical accretion to the sacrament of marriage. We must take away the incentive for non-procreative unions! Vile innovations like “protection from inheritance tax on shared property” or “being next of kin in an emergency” must be smashed to ensure the true purpose of marriage is preserved.
But even that may not be enough to stop people from marrying just because they like each other. It is a shocking fact that some people get married despite knowing that they are physically incapable of serving the true function of marriage! Perhaps still more outrageous, some will marry and then deliberately defy the imperative to squirt out infants! Just thinking in great detail about all that non-procreative sex makes me quite distressed.
From now on, when couples post the bans, along with their names and the date and venue of the wedding, they must publish the results of a compulsory fertility test. This will have the happy effect of shaming barren freeloaders out of their attempts to distort true marriage. But we must go further. To prevent the shirking of procreation, it shall henceforth be illegal for any married person to access contraception (obviously, this bar will not apply to unmarried people).
But still, some determinedly antisocial married couples will find a way to subvert marriage’s true purpose through such radical acts as “sucking off”, “frotting” and (most heinously) “intimate caressing”. To prevent such unmarital activities, I propose that we create a new branch of law and order (for it has been established by no lesser brain than Iain Duncan Smith that marriage is fundamental to the stability of society) to police husband-wife sexual activity: the Special Procreative Activities Auditing Force.
Of course, to avoid unnecessary intrusion, the SPAAF would conduct all monitoring via a system of microcameras installed in every bedroom, allowing them to ensure that married couples are making all appropriate efforts to make that baby. Should discrete observation reveal an insufficient amount of penis in vagina sex (adjusted for projected semen yields and mucus returns), the SPAAF will have the power to issue summary annulments by abseiling through the window.
I am sure that many concerned parties will volunteer to join SPAAF, having already demonstrated their intense concern with who puts what where. I also believe that traditionalists will embrace my plans as a way to reject insolent government meddling in the definition of marriage, and rediscover the true purpose of marriage by expelling the noxious modernisms of “affection” and “support”. To the peep holes, brothers and sisters!