Random Marriage Amendment
In conjunction with passing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, the Supreme Court surprises us all with an equally arbitrary addendum, stating males MUST marry the first female whom they make laugh after the age of 16. No divorce and no cheating on your new spouse, punishable by exile to the moon prison colony (that the amendment also establishes). What’s the sitch?
Wow, pretty strange move Supreme Court. Frankly, I’m confused by it. But I suppose due to the ‘grandfather clause’ you threw in, where everyone already married may stay married to their current spouse, you nine justices will be relatively unaffected.
Now, you have got to think that this sort of random assault on our liberties would be quickly overruled by the states themselves; if three-quarters of state legislatures agree, the constitution can be amended without the Supreme Court’s input. Unfortunately, about half of the current state legislatures are Republican controlled, and they are on board with the banning gay marriage portion of the amendment, so the whole thing stands. Nuts.
The first female you make laugh? How can you even monitor that sort of thing? Oh, the amendment also states that, starting at age 16 all females will wear laugh-monitors until they are married via this mechanism? Touché Supreme Court.
Ok. So there’s no getting around this irrational ruling. And I still can’t tell if, besides being blatantly homophobic, is it also misogynistic? It definitely applies the law differently to each gender, but really, it’s pretty shitty for both.
The strategies employed would have to take different forms. The women’s monitors would be sophisticated enough to differentiate fake laughter from real, so going up to a chosen man and guffawing in his face wouldn’t enact the marriage contract. Young women would work hard in private to gain absolute control of their laughter.
Sixteen-year-old men, on the other hand, would all become stand-up comics amongst themselves, prepping for the day when they needed the right line to get a laugh from that special someone. But they would have to be very careful where they told jokes; if a woman happened to be spying and giggled at a joke, that’s till death do you part.
It seems like the ruling would segregate young members of each gender completely, with individuals who were ready for marriage straying into groups of the opposite gender once in a while. Late high school and college would be very different places, with hushed conversations and a lot of time spent in the library instead of at parties… actually, on second thought, everyone would be significantly more productive!
Wait, did the Supreme Court just rule us into a utopia? This law isn’t SO different from some already in existence today, in less-free societies. Prearranged marriages take place earlier than age 16 all over the world. At least in our case each gender has a little bit of control over their eventual partner.
Eliminating one more huge choice in this modern society inundated with options of every sort might have a calming effect. Obviously people would be upset about their freedom being impinged upon. But in like, what, three or four generations (?) no one would know any different; it would just be the way things are done, kind of like the institution of marriage today.
Obviously I’m not in support of this theoretical amendment, just looking for silver linings. Like the unwritten portion of the amendment suggesting that if a male makes more than one woman laugh at the same time… well, maybe I am in support of this thing.
