Rise up, my friends, for the call to action has been issued. Sandy Rios, president of the Concerned Women for America, is not afraid to tell it like it is. “The time is now. If you don’t do something about this, in 20 years — when you see the American public disintegrating and you see our enemies overtaking us because we have no moral will — you remember that you did nothing.”
Is this an invigorating request to improve the state of our desperately under-funded public schools? Is it an invitation to join the fight for universal health care in America? No, Ms. Rios is talking about an issue with far graver consequences: the recent decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court that may lead to the marriage of homosexual couples.
I have a confession to make: I once thought that gay marriage was perfectly acceptable — a civil right worth fighting for. I had always erroneously thought to myself, “If Anna Nicole Smith and that old Texas oil millionaire dude could get married, how could you oppose the marriage of anyone else?”
Luckily, there are individuals out there with a greater capacity for cognitive reasoning than feeble-minded individuals such as myself. I was firmly “set straight” with the essence and/or universal truth of family values: The reason that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman is summed up in the word procreation. Yes, the only reason anyone really needs to get married is to make babies. Biology, or even zoology, has taught us no other combination works to allow the necessary mixture of sperm and eggs necessary to begin life.
Protecting the rights of procreating couples is tremendously important because they are the one and only future of our country. Without enough babies being born, the United States will begin to lose its popular dominance and will soon become a second-class country behind the emerging megalopolises of India and China. Only the baby-producing allies of tomorrow deserve the full legal rights and protections that marriage has to offer. Gay couples are simply incapable of having babies together, and thus need to be incapable of getting married. Thanks to the Supreme Court, we’ll just have to allow them to exist is some sort of relationship purgatory.
We cannot stop at the exclusion of gay couples, however. If we’re fighting for the future of America, then we are not going to get very far by only tiptoeing. We need to take the next logical step and exclude the marriages of all couples with no intention of procreating. Gold diggers, Vegas couples, and even senior citizens who can no longer carry children to term are the targets we need to be taking out. These people clearly lack any concern besides their own personal indulgences, and are doing nothing to further the pride and glory of America. We certainly should not be spending a single cent of our hard-earned tax dollars allowing the recognition of their “uncivil” unions. Once that’s taken care of, it will of course be necessary to follow through by banning any unmarried individual from even considering having a child.
Think of all the problems that exist from the inadequate development of children. Why debate between nature and nurture when the government can actively intervene to insure the best of both? By allowing only successful married families to have children, we can be assured that our nation’s offspring will be nothing but our finest.
The proper method of curbing improper sexual activity lies in the mandatory placement of chastity-preserving electronically locking underwear on children shortly after their birth. This would allow the government to carefully monitor their sexual activity until they meet the appropriate person.
After becoming a happily married couple for a set amount of time, they could begin to apply for permission to engage in the necessary activity to have a child, under the proper conditions. We can kill two birds with one stone, because not only would such chastity underwear prevent all sorts of unhealthy sexual activity and childbirths from occurring, but also the construction and operation of such machinery would provide a much-needed infusion of jobs into our under-performing economy. Clearly whoever is chosen to run the program will be more than capable of insuring that no moral lapses take place and that surveillance technology is used successfully to build a better America.
In short, stopping gay marriage is not nearly enough to prevent the moral and economic decline of our nation. With mandatory chastity-preserving electronically locking underwear placed on any and all of our citizens however, we can insure that our future won’t be that of second-class citizens living in a cesspool of indulgence and ethical decay. We’re fighting the good fight right alongside you, Ms. Rios.
Rob Welygan ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in history and political science.
