Here's a thought:

[growler_south]

If you want to change the law to protect the 'sanctity of marriage' then how about this: a couple may only get married after they have been in a relationship for five ok lets make it two years, same criteria as being deemed a couple for immigration purposes in civilised countries.

Of course, the tabloids would go out of business (Who's Britney going to marry today?) but I see that as a good thing...

FURTHER THOUGHTS:
Since the vocal fundies are claiming biblical authority for their interpretation of what marriage is, perhaos we should look at what marriage actually meant in biblical times and reinstate that practise? I'm pretty sure your average israelite couldnt meet someone at a club and get married in a drive-though marriage booth the next day...

Comments

[smellykaka.livejournal.com]

If you want to change the law to protect the 'sanctity of marriage' then how about this: a couple may only get married after they have been in a relationship for 5 years.

Could be a problem if a couple of mid-30s wannabe breeders meet. They'd want to be dropping sprogs in advance. I bet that wouldn't do much for the sanctity of marriage in the eyes of the Bible Belt. "Fancy those sinners having children out of wedlock! Oh, the humanity!"

Marriage

[paulo38.livejournal.com]

So you wanna put all those Celebrants & Ministers out of work do U !!
The ministers will then have nothing better to do. Except ..............

[digdusdownunda.livejournal.com]

how abouut everyone just gets the same rights?

[emsporter.livejournal.com]

In Biblical times, "moving in together" = "marriage". They did the whole party thing too, but you see a lot of "so-and-so took so-and-so into his home". That *was* indication of sticking together - moving in together!

Just imagine the shock! Horror! if you tried to reinstate *that* one today.