Won't somebody think of the children? Married couples to be required to procreate...

Erik Mesoy

Erik Mesoy

Core Tester / Intern
Joined
Mar 25, 2002
Messages
10,959
Location
Oslo, Norway
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Washington_State_Initiative_would_require_married_couples_to_have_kids
An initiative has been introduced in the U.S. state of Washington that would require a married couple to have children within three years, or else their marriage would become void.

The activist group Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance (WA-DOMA) filed Initiative 957 on January 26. If passed, marriage in the state would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. In order to receive a marriage license, a couple would have to assert that they "know of no reason" that they cannot have children. If they did not have children within three years, their marriages would be subject to annulment. All other marriages would be defined as 'unrecognized' and people in them would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.

WA-DOMA formed in 2006 in response to the decision in the case Andersen v. King County, where the state Supreme Court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage. The court found the 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which restricts marriage to unions between a man and woman, was proper. In the decision, the court reasoned that there was a "legitimate state interest" in limiting marriage to couples capable of having children.

WA-DOMA is in favor of gay marriage rights. The purpose of the initiative, according to founder Gregory Gadow, is to show that the logic behind the DOMA ruling is absurd. 'For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation ... The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine,' said Gadow. 'If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage.'

Supporters of I-957 must gather at least 224,800 valid signatures by July 6 to put it on the November ballot. The alliance says if the initiative were passed, the state supreme court would likely strike it down as unconstitutional, which would in turn weaken the Court's reasoning in upholding the Defense of Marriage Act.

The measure's backers have said they are planning two additional initiatives. One would prohibit divorce or separation when a married couple has children, and would make having a child together the equivalent of marriage.

Other gay rights groups do not support the paper. Activist Bill Dubay commented that while he gets the point of the initiative, it is unlikely he would sign it. The gay advocacy group Equal Rights Washington does not endorse the bill, stressing that that families come in all forms, with or without children, and that laws should help families, not hurt them.
Click to expand...
I have only one emote to sum this up:

Snrrrrk!
 
They had the kook who is trying to get this going on the radio the other day. And I do mean this guy is a kook. This is retribution style politics at its worst and my prediction it will utterly fail.

One thing that your story left out is that couples who adopt kids do not qualify either. So even if you and your spouse had adopted a child to raise as your own you would be forced to divorce because you had not naturally produced a kid.

They are also shooting themselves directly in the foot in regards that in Washington, its liberal families that dont have kids...not conservatives. In Seattle, pretty much the liberal nerve center of the state, there are more dogs than children. Its already a given that conservatives have more kids than liberals, so the ultimately stupid thing is this wouldnt give conservatives a dose of their own medicine at all, but force a lot of liberal democrats into a forced divorce.
 
They want to defend marriage by handing out a lot more divorces?
 
It's not an initiative designed to pass, it's an initiative designed to try and get some people to think a bit harder about their position. "The primary purpose of marriage is to procreate. Gay couples can't procreate. Therefore, gay couples should not be allowed to be married." is an argument used by some. The logical extension of that first premise is this initiative, which is obviously ridiculous. Hopefully, some people will think about it, realise that if this initiative is ridiculous, that means the premise "The primary purpose of marriage is to procreate." is also ridiculous, and maybe they'll think about their position on marriage a bit more.

*edit*Of course the other outcome is that it will simply reinforce the opinion "All those who support gay marriage are nuts, and won't rest until they destroy all the values our country is built on." But most of the people who think that are a lost cause anyway.

It's just a question of how it effects those who are undecided/haven't really thought about the issue. Whether it causes more people to think a bit harder, and make a rational decision, or whether it causes more people to feel increasingly alienated, and make their knees jerk a bit harder.*/edit*
 
Bad Player said:
well i think the article was suggesting they don't want to defend marriage at all but rather it is a red herring for increasing power to gay couples.
Click to expand...
sanabas said:
It's not an initiative designed to pass, it's an initiative designed to try and get some people to think a bit harder about their position. "The primary purpose of marriage is to procreate. Gay couples can't procreate. Therefore, gay couples should not be allowed to be married." is an argument used by some. The logical extension of that first premise is this initiative, which is obviously ridiculous. Hopefully, some people will think about it, realise that if this initiative is ridiculous, that means the premise "The primary purpose of marriage is to procreate." is also ridiculous, and maybe they'll think about their position on marriage a bit more.
Click to expand...

Bingo. I've heard about this before.
 
ummmm........ said:
Well, if I didn't think it was a legal law, it would be of the non-legal variety. The other variety would be the legal laws . . .
Click to expand...

Unconstitutional would have been a better word, me thinks.
 
Way to punish straight married couples that support gay marriage.
 
Gay people still won't be able to marry because they have to declare that they "know of no reason" that they can't have kids. If marriages were performed under oath (with penalty of treason) then you wouldn't need to put a time table to when to have kids.
 
Godwynn said:
They want to defend marriage by handing out a lot more divorces?
Click to expand...


No, it isn't really designed to become a law, or at least a constitutional one. The point is to point out how silly not allowing gays to marry is. I think it's pretty funny.
 
What about people who are infertile or who marry after they are able to have children? Marriage isn't about having children.
 
StarWorms said:
What about people who are infertile or who marry after they are able to have children? Marriage isn't about having children.
Click to expand...

That is the entire point.
 
What a crazy law. This would never of course even get close to being passed. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GoodEnoughForMe
Should the US Invade Greenland (Denmark) & Panama
24 25 26
Replies
515
Views
19K
Crezth
Crezth
Dhoomstriker
Congress, Stop Supporting Censorship! KOSA Threatens Free Speech in the US
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
Dhoomstriker
Dhoomstriker
Zardnaar
Best of The Worst Places To Live?
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
Bestbank Tiger
B
King Phaedron
7=3 Civ 7, I think I just broke the Universe - Life is a Dream within a Dream
Replies
2
Views
324
Senethro
Senethro
Samson
Anti-DEI quota riots kill at least 16
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Samson
Samson
Back
Top Bottom