I've got a great idea for ending wedding-day stress. It's quite simple - I think all weddings should be state-controlled. It would work like this: A couple decides to get married and so register their intentions on a special government website called www.themarriagemeansmore.gov.uk. Once they've done this, there is a maximum period of six months during which the wedding must take place. If the wedding hasn't been arranged in that time, the engagement is automatically cancelled by the government.When the date for the wedding has been selected, the couple simply book a slot in one of the state-owned wedding centres that are situated around the country. There will probably be a centre near to you. Although there is a six-month time limit, it is advisable not to set the date too early so that there's time for the couple to attend a course of three special 'Marriage Induction' lessons which will be led by government instructors. These sessions will focus on the meaning of marriage and will not include any reference to the wedding day itself, apart from a confirmation of the date and time it will take place.
When the wedding day arrives, the couple – newly informed and appraised of what the institution of marriage means – will arrive at the state-controlled centre. Here, there will be a straightforward civil ceremony (scripted) in which the couple will be reminded of the reasons for their attendance (i.e. their wish to be married), and their vows will be made. A strict dress code will be imposed, consisting of a lounge suit for the man and a smart cocktail dress for the woman. The couple may be attended by a maximum of eight guests, and there will be a simple state-provided buffet, with wine, in the centre's cafeteria (all celebrations are to be conducted within a one-hour period after the ceremony).
All citizens who wish to marry will only be provided with this option.
See how this would end wedding-day stress? Everyone – from royalty to workers – would all get exactly the same day so there would be no rising frenzy to try to secure the best venue, the longest stretch limo, the widest brimmed hat, the most-encrusted fingernails, or any of the other myriad of elaborate paraphernalia that preoccupies most couples these days. Such preoccupations inevitably obscure the real reason for what the day is all about anyway, and only cause arguments, envy, disappointments and the inexorable rise of the wannabe ego. My solution would restore marriage back to its proper role in society and remove the focus from the wedding to where it should be – on the relationship between two people who (should) love each more than they love a good party.
I'll write to Gordon Brown immediately.
4 comments:
I would go one step further, with the introduction of the "on the shelf" clause. All those unwed by there 40th year will be matched by lottery to a local "shelfer" as they will become known, with a profile of similar interests, under this system we would see an end to bachelorhood and the modern scurge of spinsterism as early as 2012. Unfortunately for these people divorce will be illegal and a full conjugal timetable would need to be drawn up and officially monitored, as well as enforced sunday exscurtions to Habitat to look at expensive curtains and glassware without purchasing.
Sam K
Sam, you so right. How could I have failed to include such a clause in my proposal? But what about the 'gays' of this world? Would they be similarly forced to match up with another gay 'shelfer'? Oooer missus.
Ah yes, the gays.
the gays will be exempt, this country has never been too hot at legislation that in any way pertains to them there homosexuals.
Having tried jailing them, curing them, refusing to talk about them, and now horribly, horribly patronising them. I think we can safely say that the state has 'had a bit of a go'and made a right royal fuck up on every level.
It might help if all our gay politicians weren't tragic, careworn, cottage-dwelling, "I always walk my dog on hamstead heath at 4 in the morning with my cock out officer" closet-cases as far as the gentlemen are concerned, and that one lady who's the MP for Wallasey in terms of the Sapphic.
Therefore as recompense for a history of incompetent balls-ups homosexuals will enjoy a sort of dilute diplomatic immunity. They will pay no taxes, have free public transport, and get three votes each at evry general election.
Proof could be an issue, and we don't want these priviliges abused. We might have to start a sort of sexy FBI who try and honey-trap self-proclaimed homos into doing it straight-wise.
Your thoughts?
Sam K
My thoughts, Sam, have been trapped in Birmingham all day, with no access to blogging activities at all.
However, now that I have read your treatise on the nation's handling of gays, I say "Hands off!" It is true that should gays be given special privileges under our new proposals related to the institute of marriage, there are likely to be bogus claims from faux homosexualists. Honeytrapping would probably put us over budget so perhaps a copy of "Readers' Wives" and a box of tissues would be adequate to entrap these villains. I even know people (male) who have lived with a male lover for as long as four and a half years and yet suddenly pronounce themselves heterosexual - were they caught out by the secret police, do you think? Such people will find themselves with their backs to the wall, come the revolution methinks.
Post a Comment