The National Marriage Act of 2015 and

As global warming becomes settled science and ObamaCare successes mount, it's time for the D.C. central planners to fix marriage in American.

The current rash of warm temperatures across the nation is reviving the call for a national carbon credits system. Recently, it was so warm in New York City that the city's new mayor, Bill de Blasio, threatened to remove his clothes before the local media.

Meanwhile, some patients are discovering that the benefits of ObamaCare are so astonishing that they need only go into a hospital to be able to walk out without even having been treated.

Consequently, the reputation of the central government's planning expertise is rising along with temperatures and ObamaCare cure rates.  The time is coming for the feds to address a lingering social problem that troubles the country: a divorce rate that, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), has been stuck at 53% for the last two years of record (2010-2011).

In addition to the emotional trauma divorce brings to a marriage, and to children associated with it, the average American divorce costs $15,000 (with some estimates as high as $30,000).  In 2011, there were 877,000 divorces (and annulments), costing at least $13,155,000,000 - a number equivalent to half the 2012 GDP of Vermont

A May, 2013 Huffington Post article quoted a prominent Minnesota divorce lawyer saying, "Basically it costs as much to get unmarried as it does to get married."  Divorce costs include, "attorney's fees, court costs, costs for parent education classes, fees for early neutral evaluations, mediation costs," and, where real estate is involved, "refinancing costs, record deed fees, added hourly attorney's fees," which, according to the divorce lawyer quoted, could add up to "paying the equivalent of a four-year college degree."

Clearly, it's in the nation's best interest to significantly decrease the failure rate of marriages and, thereby, save billions of dollars. And only the federal government is equipped to deal with this problem on a national level.

That's why a Democrat-controlled Congress could pass the National Marriage Act (NMA) of 2015. It would be written to: (1) make marriage less spontaneous and capricious by requiring (a) adherence to a national marriage execution process (NMEP), N-mep for the hip, before the granting of a national marriage license (NML), thereby relieving county jurisdictions of the financial burden of issuing, filing, and maintaining a record of marriages.

Also, it would require (b) a marriage preparation procedure (MPP) where couples -- regardless of gender -- are required to attend seminars where Licensed Marriage Preparation Counselors (LMPCs) teach basic topics dealing with household maintenance (e.g., finances, reproduction options - where relevant), nutritional concerns (with Mrs. Obama's input), and waste recycling.

Additionally, the NMA would (2) train couples who intend to raise children (obtained by birth or adoption) to be responsible parents who would, upon training completion, be granted a federal parenting license (FPL).

The notion that parents should be licensed by the government is not new.  In 1994, it was advanced in a Chicago Tribune article by Dr. Jack C. Westman, a professor in the Psychiatry Department of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

"A license would set the expectation that children should be competently parented. Parents would need to show basic competence before they raise their children. A parent license would define parenthood as a privilege rather than as a right. It would promote parent education. It would trigger protective services for children before they are damaged and committed to careers of habitual crime and welfare dependency. It would thereby dramatically reduce costly and largely ineffective welfare and correctional programs. It would be a rallying call for creating the safe neighborhoods and supportive communities our families require...We also should act as a national community to create a benevolent society that truly protects our children. If we do not, we will have to continue teaching our children to protect themselves from our hostile, exploitative society. Like the people in Union, who united over two children, we must unite as a nation to ensure competent parenting for all of our children.

The National Marriage Act of 2015 would provide for the design and operation of a federal government website,, dedicated to facilitating the partnering of compatible partners by identifying key beliefs and behaviors, such as reading preferences, dominant political philosophy and civic activist interests.

For example, a young man with a Pajama Boy-like profile might be paired with a real-life version of the "Julia" (or, perhaps, even a Julian) made famous in an Obama campaign ad during the 2012 election cycle. would be modeled after the nation's 2014 top dating sites and designed by a cadre of dating-site designers, along with the state-of-the-art-savvy programmers who wrote the code for the ObamaCare website.  Periodically, successfully-matched "PJ Boy-Julia" couples could be introduced by the President in the White House Rose Garden, before a giddy press pool, and pose for a photo op as President Obama officiated a brief, secular, marriage ceremony uniting several couples. 

Among other advantages brought by the NMA, it would fund free genetic screening tests administered by the CDC's Division of Reproductive Services, as well as in-home consultation from Planned Parenthood professionals.  Genetic testing would, naturally, feed into an enlightened federal eugenics initiative (EFEI, or "Effie" for short) codified in federal legislation to be profiled later. couples engaged to be married would be eligible to receive Wedding Event Loans (WELs) administered by veterans of the federal student loan program. couples who stay married for 10 years could apply to the Department of Marriage and Parenting for loan forgiveness in a process similar to educational loan forgiveness now available from the Department of Education's Federal Student Aid Office.

In conclusion, marriage is much too important to the nation to leave to the uncontrolled, whimsical vicissitudes of the free market.  It awaits the intervention of the federal government in order to (1) stabilize the nuptial chaos now apparent in the high failure rate of marriages, and to (2) provide for the proper parenting of the nation's future generations.  

To prepare those generations for what's ahead, children of couples would receive scholarships and preferential treatment when applying for acceptance into the new, nationally-mandated ObamaKid Pre-School Program.

All this is, of course, for the good of the nation. We must plan for a more competent pairing of couples, and, as Dr. Westman wrote, "...we must unite as a nation to ensure competent parenting for all of our children."

If you experience technical problems, please write to