Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

02:34 PM PST on Monday, February 5, 2007

KING5.com Staff and Associated Press

OLYMPIA, Wash. - An initiative filed by proponents of same-sex marriage would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriage annulled.

Initiative 957 was filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance. That group was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage.

Under the initiative, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children in order to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriage would be subject to annulment.

All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized" and people in those marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.

"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 WA-DOMA organizer Gregory Gadow in a printed statement. "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 must gather more than 224,000 valid signatures by July 6 to put the initiative on the November ballot.

Opponents say the measure is another attack on traditional marriage, but supporters say the move is needed to have a discussion on the high court ruling.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,376 • Replies: 31

No top replies

Apparently, the Pro-Homo Marriage people are running our of reasonable arguments to further their cause.

And you think this is a reasonable argument beacause...............

0 Replies

Actually, they think it's "absurd" -- but hope to show that it's just as absurd as the "protect marriage" ballot measures.

As in, hard to defend one without defending the other (or pillory one without pillorying the other).

0 Replies

I'm loving it!

0 Replies

It's cute - and what more, it does seem to be built upon at least some logic.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Satire.

Love it.

Mind you, those at whom it is aimed...see Woiyo above...will not comprehend it.

0 Replies

I'd sign such a petition.

0 Replies

My guess is...as Sozobe said...that the sponsors think the initiative is absurd...but...

...since it is being used to combat another absurdity, perhaps that is the only reasonable tactic.

Gotta give these folks credit for originality.

And...it is amazing what an organization like the Supreme Court can do when faced with something as unusual as this. It wouldn't surprise me...if the things passed and ever got to the court for consideration...to see some strange bedfellows on both sides of any decision.

0 Replies

http://rawstory.com//images/new/stopygaymarriagead.jpg

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

I'm loving it!

You took the words right out of my mouth.

(it must have been while I was kissing you....meatloaf).

0 Replies

Where can RP and I borrow a kid for a few years? You know, until this whole thing blows over?

0 Replies

This is where I got the "absurd" comment btw:

Quote:

Same-sex marriage supporters introduce measure requiring heterosexual couples to have children
The Associated Press
Published: February 5, 2007

OLYMPIA, Washington: Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced a state ballot measure that would require heterosexual couples to have a child within three years or have their marriages annulled.

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance acknowledged on its Web site that the initiative was "absurd" but hoped the idea prompts "discussion about the many misguided assumptions" underlying a state Supreme Court ruling that upheld a ban on same-sex marriage, partially on the grounds that marriage is tied to having children.

The measure would require couples to prove they can have children to get a marriage license. Couples who do not have children within three years could have their marriages annulled.

All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized," making those couples ineligible for marriage benefits.

The state Supreme Court opinion written by Justice Barbara Madsen concluded that "limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the state's interests in procreation and encouraging families with a mother and father and children biologically related to both."

Gregory Gadow, who filed the initiative, said the argument is unfair when you're dealing with same-sex couples who are unable to have children together.

"What we are trying to do is display the discrimination that is at the heart of last year's ruling," he said.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/06/america/NA-GEN-US-Gay-Marriage.php

Go, Gregory Gadow.

0 Replies

I think that idea is fabulous. If marriage is for procreation, ergo, couples who don't produce children should not have the benefits of wedded bliss. I love it!

(Jes- You can borrow my kid, but I don't know if his wife would be too pleased about it! 0

0 Replies

loving it too!

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

I think that idea is fabulous. If marriage is for procreation, ergo, couples who don't produce children should not have the benefits of wedded bliss. I love it!

(Jes- You can borrow my kid, but I don't know if his wife would be too pleased about it! 0

You two are about this.

Fact is, the controversy has never really been about procreation...or even the "ability" to procreate. If anything, right now the world probably needs less "procreation" and more responsibility for the results of procreation.

And it certainly is not about "protecting the sanctity of marriage"...because marriage is in an incredible state of disrepair right now due to what married people do and don't do...not due to disruptive forces from outside of marriage.

This is about prejudice...and a learned loathing of behavior that is different. And it is absurd...which is why it probably makes sense to fight it with other absurities. Often...when the opposite absurdity is shown to someone displaying absurdity...it becomes apparent in a way that otherwise would not be apparent.

In any case, why would the state (which is supposed to be divorced from religion) be interested in "protecting" the "sanctity" of anything.

I think the idea is brilliant...and I hope it stirs up a hornet's nest. The more light brought to bear on this nonsense...the better.

0 Replies

jespah wrote:

Where can RP and I borrow a kid for a few years? You know, until this whole thing blows over?

You can have Nigel.
Once you get him through college, I'll take him back.

0 Replies

Jes - Pease post your address.

Oh, and thanks in advance. Very Happy

Bear and I really appreciate it.

Sincerely,
Squinney

0 Replies

Frank wrote:

In any case, why would the state (which is supposed to be divorced from religion) be interested in "protecting" the "sanctity" of anything.

I think the idea is brilliant...and I hope it stirs up a hornet's nest. The more light brought to bear on this nonsense...the better.

I have been making fun of this Frank, but you are absolutely right. I would suppose the only interest that the state would have is keeping couples together so that the family unit would be more stable. Bottom line, stable families mean less government expense.

Hey, come to think of it, childless couples, whether straight or gay, would cause the least expense to the government in terms of the services that they would have to provide. So what's the big f***ing deal about gay couples????

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I think the idea is brilliant...and I hope it stirs up a hornet's nest. The more light brought to bear on this nonsense...the better.

Yep! Which is why I wish I could sign the petition.

0 Replies

The ol' reductio ad absurdum!

0 Replies

Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know