Bride/Groom in Dustbin of History

There are times when, contrary to what I've believed for a lifetime, I think that the current U.S. system of government is fatally flawed. The reason has nothing to do with the Constitution, to which when officials pay heed things run smoothly. The problem has to do with what the founders probably thought, i.e., that reasonable people would always occupy positions of authority in all three branches, both elective and appointive.

Across the board, this has never been the case, as can easily be seen by reading any high-school history book that hasn't undergone revisions by the politically correct, who have damned education for decades. However, the trend toward succumbing to the flaw seems now to be ultra-enhanced. For instance, the courthouse clerks in Kentucky are now revising marriage licenses since homosexual marriages do not have a bride and groom, terms appearing now on licenses.

This would not be the case if the founders were right in believing that reasonable people would always make and enforce laws. When five unelected officials out of a population of 320 million souls decided that men can marry each other they proved that the flaw becomes operative when government is administered by idiots. That sounds harsh, so...mentally-challenged or educationally-stunted or too-long-in-the-sun. Fill in your own blank.

Now, it appears that the licenses will use the terms “first party” and “second party,” though that sounds discriminatory and will make wild documents for enrolling children in school (adopted, of course or birthed when either party had been a bride or groom or husband or wife in another life). Grandparents will be known as grand-party #1 and grand-party #2. For census and other official purposes, will Party #1 always be the head-of-household, or will that anachronistic term be eradicated, also? Obits will read like a legal document and genealogists will go nuts as parties multiply in the family tree with no annotations as to sire and mate. Add in a surrogate womb as another party and it's gangbusters.

There's another angle to consider. According to the Louisville Courier-Journal, a big deal in that city now is something called “polyamory.” Dictionary-wise, this seems to be a non-word but is operative when a party(ies) claims to be “polyamorous,” also a non-word. Polyamory seems to be based on consensual non-monogamy or ethical cheating (a beautiful oxymoron), to wit, people in something as confining as marriage to one person but desiring, with the other marriage party's consent, to get it on with others, as well.

Now that homosexual-marriage is legal, it's only a matter of time before “poly” parties will demand that marriages including most any configuration will sue for their “rights,” knowing that the Supreme Court has already made most any arrangement (perhaps animals excluded, at least for now) legal. The paper mentioned a study by an outfit called in which it was determined that four percent of the population (probably adults...who knows?) are in these “poly” relationships now.

According to the Centers for Disease Control this past June, only 1.6% of the population claims to be homosexual, so the Court has backed itself into a corner, what with the polyamorous crowd much larger than the gays and lesbians combined. So, Kentucky may soon have to add parties #3 and #4 or #more. This is the only way that children can be legally considered in the inevitable divorces (or killings) resulting from the poly-party hook-ups.

The Court would have to treat this as a “fairness” matter, of course. If two men can get hitched, then what about the polyamorous parties or bisexual parties or even transgender parties, whether in or out of transitioning mode from one gender to another? After all, even Muslim men are allowed four wives, although this varies for some. Osama bin Laden's father had 22 wives but only four at a time, according to Wiki, but the old man had financial pull with the ayatollahs, so who knows? Mohammad the prophet had only 12 wives.

The founders were not perfect but were not dumb as gourds, either. The sanctity of man/woman marriage was important in their day for legal, practical, and spiritual reasons and they would be appalled at what is unfolding morally in this country now. The effort to trivialize marriage has been operative since at least the 60s, when the flower-children came of age. Today, look at the Court to find the gourds.

And so it goes.
Jim Clark