Something Massachusetts governor and Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney said the other day finally set off the right bell in my pinball brain last night.
Mitt said, to support his opposition to homosexual marriage, "It's not about what adults do. Marriage is about the nurturing and raising of children."
Ah. In that case, homosexual couples who have adopted children should be allowed to marry. It's not about what the adults do.
Going further, childless heterosexual married couples should have their marriages dissolved. Especially if medical records show one or both partners to be infertile, no children can be produced. You'd better run out and adopt one or two.
Indeed, following Mitt's logic, any couple that produces a child should be automatically entered into a state of wedlock.
Considering Mitt's recent switch to a "pro-life" stance, every teen pregnancy should be carried to term and the young couple locked into marriage because of it.
No one can divorce as long as they have a child under 18.
No homosexual couple should be allowed to adopt. A child born to any abusive, neglectful, baby-drowning nut job is better off in that natural, heterosexual environment than being raised by men or women of confusing gender preference.
If we adopt Mitt's notion of marriage solely as a breeding contract, heterosexual couples who marry will only have a probationary marriage. If they get all the way to the end of their reproductive lives without scoring a goal, do they have to split up and divide their assets?
If only heterosexual couples are approved to marry, and then only for purposes of procreation, will the government provide a substitute spouse to replace one that dies or proves absolutely too criminally violent to be allowed to remain in the marriage? The substitute would serve until the survivor of the original marriage married again. That would require an approved mate, of course.
I'm glad the Republicans are against too much government interference in people's private lives.