Marriage is for child-bearing couples only?

http://www.komotv.com/news/5566451.html

Quote:

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.

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.

"Absurd? Very," the group says on its Web site, which adds it is planning two more initiatives involving marriage and procreation. "But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions" underlying the Supreme Court's ruling.

Gregory Gadow, who filed I-957 last month, said the three-year timeframe was arbitrary.

"We did toy with the idea of (requiring) procreation before marriage," he said. "We didn't want to piss off the fundamentalists too much."

Gadow said that if the group's initiatives were passed, the Supreme Court would be forced to strike them down as unconstitutional, which he believes would weaken the original ruling upholding the Defense of Marriage Act.

But he said he highly doubts any of the initiatives will pass, and that they are being done "in the spirit of political street theater."

"Our intention is not to actually put this into law," he said. "All we want is to get this on the ballot and cause people to talk about it."

The group's Web site gives another reason: "And at the very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric."

Cheryl Haskins, executive director of Allies for Marriage & Children, agreed with Gadow's group on at least one point about the initiative: "It's absurd," she said.

Haskins said opponents of same-sex marriage "have never said that the sole purpose of marriage is procreation."

"When we talk about defending the institution of marriage, we're talking about the union of a man and a woman," she said. "Some of those unions produce children and some of them don't."

With I-957, "you're dictating people's choices in a way that is utterly ridiculous," she said.

However, Gadow noted that the Supreme Court's majority decision specifically mentioned procreation throughout.

The 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."

Gadow 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.

Even the Legislature's most prominent proponent of same-sex marriage, Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, said he thought the initiative was misguided. While the "absurdity" of the Supreme Court decision should be discussed, that discussion needs to take place in the Legislature, he said.

"I don't think the initiative process should be used to determine the rights and protections of marriage," he said.

Murray, one of five openly gay lawmakers in the Legislature, is sponsoring a measure that would create domestic partnerships for same-sex couples and another to allow same-sex marriage. The domestic partnership measure has passed out of committee and a vote on the Senate floor could come within weeks.

The sponsor of the same-sex marriage measure in the House, Rep. Jamie Pedersen, said he supported the effort "to draw attention to the hypocrisy of some of those who oppose marriage equality" but opposed the initiative.

"For the same reason I don't think same-sex couples should be excluded from marriage, I don't think heterosexual married couples should be forced to procreate," said Pedersen, D-Seattle.

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.

Gadow said his goal is to raise $300,000 to spend on advertising on the first initiative.

My sister just showed me this link. It blows my mind. "Marriage is only for heterosexals and while we're at it, make it so only child-birthing couples can get married."

I know they aren't really serious about making this law, but what if? What do you think?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Eh. I'm a bigot, so I suppose my opinion doesn't count here simply because I don't wish to argue it. It's simply tradition, is my reasoning. Go ahead and tear it apart. You won't be getting a response.

More power to them.

I'll be voting yes.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I have doubts this is a serious bid for a law. Honestly, I think a law that says "You have to have a kid in 3 years or you aint married" is unfair to couples who love each other more than anything in the world but just plain can't have a child. The way it reads too, adoption wouldn't count. I think this is just a way to spark debate (and it worked).

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Koneko

I have doubts this is a serious bid for a law. Honestly, I think a law that says "You have to have a kid in 3 years or you aint married" is unfair to couples who love each other more than anything in the world but just plain can't have a child. The way it reads too, adoption wouldn't count. I think this is just a way to spark debate (and it worked).

I'm sure they'd have some sort of clause where anyone medically unable to birth a child would be exempt from this law.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Oh man, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage and crew are going to have a field day with this one. There is no way a proposal like this will ever go anywhere. Marriage isn't about having kids. Straight couples know it and gay couples know it. No one would ever support something this ridiculous.

I was speaking idiomatically.

With the world overpopulated as it is, I think this is totally absurd. I can't see it even getting off the ground...I hope : /

Most amazing jew boots

The whole thing is nothing more than symbolism. Absolutely retarded symbolism, I might add. It'll get people talking, but certainly not in a good way with a method like this. There's simply too many people that'll blow it completely out of proportion.

Not to mention the LOL that'll ensue if this miraculously passes, then the heterosexual side lobbies to have the same thing put into effect for homosexual couples citing the same equality precedent. Male couples are promptly owned being unable to conceive a child.

FELIPE NO

Didn't anyone READ the article?

Quote:

"Our intention is not to actually put this into law," he said. "All we want is to get this on the ballot and cause people to talk about it."

The group's Web site gives another reason: "And at the very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric."

It's not intended to be made into a law. It's intended to get people to think.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I've never heard anyone say that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation, and I've lived in the Bible Belt almost my entire life. I'll bet one or two high-profile fag haters said it and now it's "social conservatives who have long screamed." Hilarity.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I think it's a combination of two different points, Alice. I've heard lots of people say marriage should only be for men and women, without any real reasoning behind that. The implied understanding is that the underlying sexual relationship is more healthy.

I have also heard, regarding the sexual behavior of fags, that homosexuality is wicked because it defies the natural purpose of sex, which is to procreate. Basically, sex is righteous for breeders because kids tend to pop out.

The entire argument then is that the state should not sanction unhealthy and wicked sexual practices, to be determined by the ability to reproduce.

Of course, I doubt most people really understand their own objections anymore. It's become so mainstream that I'm sure they just remember agreeing with whatever arguments they heard, and can now rest easy on stupid phrases like "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." Which, naturally, is beyond frustrating, because you can't even argue at that level.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I'm not saying I haven't heard people say that marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman, but I don't believe I've ever heard anyone say that it is for procreation reasons or even to ensure sexual "health". I always thought it was understood that it was because the Bible states that homosexual relationships are sinful.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Alice

I always thought it was understood that it was because the Bible states that homosexual relationships are sinful.

I've heard both this and because heterosexual relationships are more "stable" which leads to the jokes about divorce rate and etc etc.

In any case, god clearly made Adam, Eve, AND Steve, and life was a party.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by the article

However, Gadow noted that the Supreme Court's majority decision specifically mentioned procreation throughout.

The 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."

This is what prompted the highly satirical proposed law. They are simply turning the state Supreme Court's words against them, in an effort to illuminate how ridiculous their decision was, and how silly their stated reasoning was. By saying "Ok well if you are against gay marriage because of no ability to procreate, then you are saying that the purpose of marriage is procreation." Of course when the state Supreme Court denies that, they are openly admitting that their own personal bias against gay marriage was the true reason that they made their ruling, not the reason that they stated.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by russ

This is what prompted the highly satirical proposed law. They are simply turning the state Supreme Court's words against them, in an effort to illuminate how ridiculous their decision was, and how silly their stated reasoning was. By saying "Ok well if you are against gay marriage because of no ability to procreate, then you are saying that the purpose of marriage is procreation." Of course when the state Supreme Court denies that, they are openly admitting that their own personal bias against gay marriage was the true reason that they made their ruling, not the reason that they stated.

I'm glad someone else read past the first 3 lines of the starting post.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

While it's a nice way to throw a cop-out ruling in the faces of the judges who made it, it's a bit extreme, even for satire. There are ways other than lobbying for an extreme law to be passed. Sure, they don't intend it to be made into law and want people to think and talk about it, but what happens if the voting populace decides it's wacky enough to pass? Heaven help us.

Even people against same-sex marriage have to realize that marriage isn't about producing children, but I can think of less frivolous ways to make that point.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by drex

but what happens if the voting populace decides it's wacky enough to pass?

Originally Posted by the article

Gadow said that if the group's initiatives were passed, the Supreme Court would be forced to strike them down as unconstitutional, which he believes would weaken the original ruling upholding the Defense of Marriage Act.

Why not fight fire with fire; silly law with silly law?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Vestin

I'm sure they'd have some sort of clause where anyone medically unable to birth a child would be exempt from this law.

Naw, according to the satirical nature of the law, those who can't make the babies aren't "marriage material". Of course, I'm sure they could issue "adoption waivers" or something of that nature (Adopt your first two kids, get the third one free!)

Now, granted, at first glance (right before I posted this), I thought it was serious, but I read over it and saw the part where it says they don't expect this to become law. It'd be kinda scary if there's people out there who seriously think Marriage = Baby-making (or else).

How ya doing, buddy?

Yeah, that is pretty scary. I don't agree with the not having children part.

That's ridiculous.

Come to think of it, I don't agree with anything this law says and I'm not even sure why I made the first post in this thread. Fucking A.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Thats obviously retarded. Personally, I think a person shouldn't have kids outside of marriage simply for the sake of the kids. But its just as bad to have kids simply for the sake of being able to stay married. Having kids should only be considered if your willing to love the kids, not if your simply doing it because the law says you have to.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Smelnick

Thats obviously retarded.

Yeah, funny thing.

So, anyways:

Originally Posted by russ

Why not fight fire with fire; silly law with silly law?

It's certainly a way to get things done, but not the most expedient, considering you have to wait for

1. the law to get passed
2. Someone to "break" the law
3. Someone to bring this breaking of the law to the attention of an idealistic D.A.
4. The trial itself
5. The summary ruling of unconstitutionality

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Vestin

I'm sure they'd have some sort of clause where anyone medically unable to birth a child would be exempt from this law.

That would destroy the whole point. Homosexuals are medically unable to birth children as well.

I was speaking idiomatically.

I don't understand why homosexuals would WANT to get married. I mean it will just lead to homosexual divorce and then the court would have to decide which spouse was the pitcher and which was the catcher so that one of them could get alimony.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

You're...not serious, are you?

FELIPE NO

Somehow that sounds serious. >_<

And yes, it's rather absurd, but I'd really like to see them try.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by parKbench

I don't understand why homosexuals would WANT to get married. I mean it will just lead to homosexual divorce and then the court would have to decide which spouse was the pitcher and which was the catcher so that one of them could get alimony.

Why does this sound like a quote from a movie?

Jam it back in, in the dark.