CARNAL NATION

It probably goes without saying that if people spent half as much time on their own, actual marriages as they do pontificating on who should or should not marry, there'd be a lot less divorce in this country. But as history has shown, such stinging truths have little, if any, place in the American dream as long as there exist such things as scapegoats and sanctimonious morality. It should come as no surprise then that the year 2010 will be another year of more hand-wringing than hand-holding over the institution of marriage.

In California, there are no less than 5 initiatives to repeal Proposition 8 in the works for next year's elections. Prop. 8 infamously reversed a court decision allowing same-sex marriage in the Golden State and amended the state constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. All five initiatives would make gay marriage legal, and they would all exempt clergy from performing marriage ceremonies that conflict with their religious beliefs. One wonders if this provision would also be used for/against heterosexual couples because I can think of several marriages that are ungodly in all the worst ways. In any case, each of these initiatives requires the signatures of 694,354 registered voters in order to be placed on the ballot next year. Chances are that at least one will make it through unless, of course, dividing by five doesn't add up to the requisite number.

But for those who truly want to save marriage, there is an initiative that takes that shibboleth literally. California resident and purported pragmatist John Marcotte has begun the daunting task of collecting 694,354 signatures in his bid to outlaw divorce in this no-fault state. While annulments would still be possible should Marcotte be successful, many marriages would indeed be saved from that nefarious institution known as divorce. There is apparently another benefit to this idea: fiscal savings. It seems that the state would save hundreds of millions of dollars per year by not having to fund divorce court.

However, if you really—I mean really—want to save marriage, then you need to make it inaccessible to everyone. What better way to preserve something than to keep it out of reach of all those grubby hands that would further sully its already tarnished reputation. Marriage under glass in a museum—now that would be a grand gesture. Leave it to Texas, the place where everything is big, to make such a big statement. Or was it all a big mistake? It seems that a 22-word clause added to the state constitution in 2005 to 'preserve' marriage for heterosexuals (provided that the couple comprised one man and one woman) may have actually preserved marriage in something like formaldehyde, effectively making it illegal to marry anyone (regardless of genitalia) in the Lone Star State. Barbara Ann Radnofsky, an attorney and Democratic candidate for Attorney General, says that the wording of subsection B of the amendment puts the entire institution of marriage into question. Ahhh, politics.

The wording of subsection B is as follows: "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage." Radnofsky says that phrase is a big mistake. "Whoever vetted the language in B must have been asleep at the wheel," she said. Those words, she claims, may eliminate not only the right to a common law marriage but also the legal status of all marriages in the state. While marriage itself is probably safe or would be saved by some quick legislative work if the argument pans out in court, Radnofsky asserts that the wording does open the door to all kinds of legal claims related to marriage, such as insurance claims, spousal rights, inheritance, etc.

For the moment though, all eyes in Texas are upon the forthcoming appeal to a Dallas District Court ruling that said banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional because it stands in the way of the fundamental right to gay divorce. There's that 'D' word again. Hmmmm.