| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Law would require married couples to produce children |
| 2007-02-07 |
| From the YJCMTSUIYT Department: OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced an initiative that would put a whole new twist on traditional unions between men and women: It would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriages annulled. Gadow said the argument is unfair when you're dealing with same-sex couples who are unable to have children together. Initiative 957 was filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, which was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage. In that 5-4 ruling, the court found that state lawmakers were justified in passing the 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which restricts marriage to unions between a man and woman. Under I-957, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children to get a marriage license, and 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. Supporters of I-957 must gather at least 224,800 valid signatures by July 6 to put it on the November ballot. The measure's backers said the two additional initiatives they plan would prohibit divorce or separation when a married couple has children, and would make having a child together the equivalent of marriage. |
| Posted by:CrazyFool |
| #7 Pholutle Ebbailing5038: I was very specific, with "no chance" and it being a church wedding. For example a paraplegic man who cannot copulate. Googling that turns up several instances of church marriage denial. Now, the Catholic Church knows better than to try and second guess medical determinations, so they rely on the basics, mostly permanent impotence, or if the husband did not have a penis and/or testicles. Other medical conditions might be definite, but they won't nit pick. The idea of a time limit for producing children in a marriage, or else having it downgraded to a civil union is an interesting one, and not unlike time limits for other forms of welfare. That would actually give the government a working definition of marriage and its benefits being exclusively for couples seeking to make and raise children. If after three years of trying without success, which does happen to many heterosexual couples, they could still continue to try, but they would no longer qualify for marriage benefits, until such time as there was an actual pregnancy or adoption. By re-defining marriage as an institution for the raising of children, with everything else being a civil union, many of the legal problems are avoided. And taxes are lowered, by the way. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-02-07 23:14 |
| #6 ...to shove gay marriage down our throats. Aaaaaaugh! Need mental floss to get that image out of my head. Any of .com's links around? |
| Posted by: xbalanke 2007-02-07 21:56 |
| #5 I lied. I wasn't done. Laws to require couples to have children is just stupid. Sometimes you just want to tell people to get the hell out of my knickers. Now I'm done. |
| Posted by: Pholutle Ebbailing5038 2007-02-07 17:36 |
| #4 Anonymoose, I have been Catholic all my life, minor seminary and Catholic university educated, and have NEVER heard that marriage is solely for procreation. We were asked if we knew of any impediment to having children (NO) and if we were willing to accept children if my wife got pregnant (YES). "No chance" to have children is extreme. For example, if a man had become sterile due to mumps as a child, there is a small chance he could still have viable sperm, and so is married. Do not confuse possibility with probability. I'm done. Thank you. |
| Posted by: Pholutle Ebbailing5038 2007-02-07 17:34 |
| #3 The issue does need to be clarified, legally. The Catholic church has held for a long time that marriage is solely for procreation. They won't even marry a couple in church if there is no chance that they cannot make children. Adoption does not count. There is some substance to this argument, and also to the importance to a nation of having and raising children. So for that reason, government wants to subsidize couples who are planning to, and are having children. Extrapolated from this are the other benefits given to married couples, such as retirement and death benefits--mostly based on the idea that couples with children have been at a financial disadvantage to raise children, so need extra money in their later years. However, there are plenty of heterosexuals who want to be married, but don't want or can't have children. And they also want the benefits given to couples who do want and can have children. Then, there is an overlap with homosexual couples who adopt and raise children. If this is permitted, again it is in the interest of the government to give them financial assistance to help them raise the child. It is for the child, not for the adults. So, weirdly enough, this proposed law might actually be one way of resolving the legal issues. That is, by limiting "marriage" to just individuals who are either going to have children, or are going to adopt children. However, instead of annulment, the law might be written so that a couple would have their "marriage" become a "civil union" after three years. Thereafter, if the wife developed a viable pregnancy, *or* the couple adopted (including homosexuals, all else being equal), *then* their "civil union" would be upgraded to a "marriage". This would mean several things. First of all, that "marriage" would be children oriented, and all marriage benefits would be based on their being children to benefit. Second, importantly, would be that couples of any kind who did *not* have children would get no "marriage benefits". This means that if a heterosexual couple decided they didn't want kids, but the wife didn't want to work, anyway, just slack off, that it would be their own fault when in their retirement years they were poor. Same with homosexuals. If a business offered a perquisite of retirement and death benefits, that is one thing, but it would no longer be mandated, just because you had a "civil union". Because the nation has no reason to subsidize people who neither work nor raise children. Bottom line: Though this law is done for the wrong reason, they might have stumbled on a future possibility. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-02-07 11:39 |
| #2 This is just a political stunt aimed to expose the bullcrap of the marriage is for procreation arguements. Like many political theater ideas spewed out from the militant left it will probably do more harm than good to their cause. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2007-02-07 11:33 |
| #1 Hashed out yesterday, but I like the title. Of course, these fascists will stop at nothing to shove gay marriage down our throats. |
| Posted by: BA 2007-02-07 09:15 |