So the Prez has decided that the path to solving all the problems of our nation lies in keeping people from getting divorced. At least, he wants to spend $1.5 billion on programs that may (or may not) help people to decide to stay married.

Hmm. $1.5 billion would pay the tuition of 75,000 students at elite private schools (assuming tuition of $20,000) or the tuition of 200,000 students at state schools (assuming tuition of $7,500). If we actually had a spare billion or two lying around the Treasury, I'd suggest spending it that way.

But the Prez wants people to stay hitched. So he plans to send $1.5 billion we don't have into the breach caused by the supposed "marriage crisis" in America. Regular readers are well-aware of my decidedly negative feelings toward the traditional institution of marriage. Even so, I know a lot of people (including myself) who happen to be happily married. I also know a lot of people who have made their lives better with a divorce. I'm not talking about abusive situations; even the Prez's people admit that folks suffering from domestic violence are probably better off getting a divorce. I'm talking about folks who made a bad choice in mates. And also folks who made a good choice at the time, but who grew apart through the years--as people often do.

My wife and I met when she was 18 and I was 19. We were together (mostly) though our college years and then we (finally) got married when she was 24 and I was 25. We're now 32 and 33, respectively. In a couple of years, I will have spent more time with Barbara than I did growing up with my parents. I think it's safe to say Barbara and I know a little something about keeping a relationship going over the long haul. And it's also safe to say that a lot of people don't.

The key to making a higher percentage of marriages successful is to weed out those couples who have little chance of succeeding in the first place. Some religions take this responsibility more seriously than others. Roman Catholics, for example, have a fairly rigorous counseling program for prospective couples. I have some friends who waded through this gauntlet, and they all agree that it was tough--tough enough to probably convince some people to not get married. I don't have any stats on this--and I don't know anyone who "failed" their pre-marital counseling--but this sort of serious inquiry into the marital fitness of a couple sounds like a good idea to me.

In some states, there is a thing called a "committed marriage." Couples who sign up for this are not allowed to get a "no-fault" divorce; termination of the marriage can happen only after certain specific criteria are met. I suppose the folks who created this institution had good intentions, but I think they're coming at the problem from the wrong end. We ought to be making it more difficult for people to get married, not making it harder for people to get divorced.

I know, this argument is philosophical kin to the one that says teaching kids about conception will reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies and thus also reduce the abortion rate. Hey wait--that's a good thing! This plan actually makes sense. Fewer bad marriages on the books means fewer divorces in the future. You can take it to the bank.

The folks who are gung-ho about the whole marriage thing would probably cringe at such a suggestion. These people seem to believe that our society is built largely upon the institution of marriage and that if we allow too many people to live their lives without being married, then social order will fall apart. If old men are free to trade in their old partners every ten years, where does that leave all the old ladies? If we don't have stable households for our kids, they'll end up unhappy freaks who are capable of blowing up a Wal-Mart or something. I'm just paraphrasing, of course, but I don't think I'm exaggerating much.

The truth of the matter is that there is no traditional society based on marriage. In the olden days, class and race dictated the structure of societies. The institution of marriage didn't prevent people from having sex indiscriminately or from having children out of wedlock. Until quite recently, the institution of marriage didn't even necessarily ensure the financial stability of a surviving wife. What it did do was allow men to act like pigs and hold their wives in relative bondage. Though if you read your Flaubert (and many others), many women were smart enough to see through this ruse--even if they did get punished in the end.

In our nation today, we have mini-societies based on religion, gender, sexual orientation, race, career choice, geographic proximity, age of children and political persuasion, among others. If you take away marriage, these small societies would continue to function just fine, and our society as a whole would keep on truckin'. The reason married couples stay together isn't because of a piece of paper or threat of legal sanction. Most couples stick around because, well, they're comfortable with their mates. This can be a passionate need or something more platonic, but as long as people are happy, who am I to define what makes a good marriage? For that matter, who is the government to try and browbeat unhappy people into staying married?

It seems to me that we as a nation have a few more important things to worry about than the state of marriage. Like shelter. The quality of the air we breathe and the water we drink. The safety of our food. Education. The quality of the beers brewed by our largest brewers. Homeland security. If we fix all those problems, then hey, maybe it's time to start messing around with marriage. Until then, the Prez oughta just say no.

Jon Worley hopes that the ninth anniversary is the "kegerator" anniversary.