Initiative by Proponents of Same-Sex Marriage Requires Married Couples to Have Kids

[Woodmonkey]

Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids


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.

The Source

[leobold1]

“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."

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I think its a cheap ploy, but if it makes those set against gay marriage take notice then its done its job.

I just don't see the whole point. If gay men and women want to have the option of losing half their stuff when it all goes wrong, moving it from one court to another, I don't see the problem.

[EdNigma]

hhhmmm.. Well, I am over 40, married, and have no kids; well I claim my wifes as my own in heart. What about us that were 'snipped' at age 18 'cause we are responsible enough NOT to have them?

hhmm.. China forcing abortions, and the US trying to force births. Where will the madness end?!?!?!
/rant off

[Betty Boop]

Originally Posted by EdNigma

hhmm.. China forcing abortions, and the US trying to force births. Where will the madness end?!?!?!
/rant off

While procreation is definitely a purpose of marriage, it is hardly the sole purpose. Marriage was initially a religious "rite" and then when governments discovered they could tax on it, it became a civil function as well. While I have no problems of alternative lifestyle couples wanting to pay civil union taxes, to have same demanding the recognition and acceptance of world religious bodies when the lifestyle goes against virtually all of them, is just going too far. Muslim, Hindi, Jewish, Christian - all say the same thing, homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God. Man-made rules do not change that faith tenet and should not be expected to somehow legitimize alternative life choices. It is just laughable to demand that only one criteria of a religious-based marriage union be used to define in totality marriage in a civil/legal world.

Domestic partnerships and civil unions - none of my business. But don't go confusing marriage, as defined by most world religions, as the same thing. They simply are not.

[Woodmonkey]

Originally Posted by Betty Boop

While procreation is definitely a purpose of marriage, it is hardly the sole purpose. Marriage was initially a religious "rite" and then when governments discovered they could tax on it, it became a civil function as well. While I have no problems of alternative lifestyle couples wanting to pay civil union taxes, to have same demanding the recognition and acceptance of world religious bodies when the lifestyle goes against virtually all of them, is just going too far. Muslim, Hindi, Jewish, Christian - all say the same thing, homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God. Man-made rules do not change that faith tenet and should not be expected to somehow legitimize alternative life choices. It is just laughable to demand that only one criteria of a religious-based marriage union be used to define in totality marriage in a civil/legal world.

That was well said, Coleen.

Domestic partnerships and civil unions - none of my business. But don't go confusing marriage, as defined by most world religions, as the same thing. They simply are not.

We should allow civil unions, and not just between two men or two women who have sex with each other and want to share property. It should also be allowed for a parent and disabled child so the child can be properly cared for when the parent dies. Same for two sisters who band together.

[EdNigma]

Betty is pretty good at hitting stuff on the head.
-cheers-

and no, it's not. What's next? Ranchers and cattle?