Ballot Requires Post-Nuptial Kids

[Jo]

Tuesday, Feb. 06, 2007 By AP/RACHEL LA CORTE Article

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

Article (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1586322,00.html)

[Lori]

That's funny, and I totally appreciate the impulse behind it, but I also think that there are far, far more productive ways to go about educating people than misusing the democratic system (which I would consider trying to pass a bill you don't actually want to see passed doing).

[Val]

It seems like a waste of time, money, and resources to me. I get what they're saying, and I'm all for gay marriage, but this seems pointless. I don't think it will change anyone's mind.

[YourMom]

My first reaction to this is *snort*

[Jejune]

Eh. I don't really dig seeing laws enacted to prove how stupid laws are. But I AM snorting at YourMom's signature every single time I see it. I sound like a pig.

[Brooke]

My first reaction to this is *snort*

ROFLMAO

Same here

[Erika]

LOL It is rather amusing. But like Kristen, reactionary measures could well backfire as they could end up looking like spoilsports going :nannybooboo

Plus there are other reasons for being anti-gay marriage than just seeing marriage purely for procreation.

and :rofl at Kristen sounding like a pig. Though the sister of my best friend is actually called pig (well it is really Maggie but her nn since she was a baby is pig).

[Kristen]

The fact that gay marriages can't biologically produce children is not why I oppose them. I think that's a stupid argument, especially given the existence of infertile heterosexual couples. Hello, large hole in the argument.

I suppose if I was an evolutionist, the fact that same-sex couples can't get pregnant might give me pause to think, but, I'm not an evolutionist, and the no-biological children aspect of gay marriage is pretty immaterial to me.

The not-so-smart-and-logical group of anti-gay marriage people uses the inability to reproduce argument...I suppose if it's what the majority of anti-gay marriage think, it's logical to target that argument. I have a hard time thinking that's everyone's main objection to gay marriage, though.

[MathSpeak]

didn't even read the article because the impetus behind the whole ballot is crazy, at best :wink

[Lori]

I suppose if I was an evolutionist, the fact that same-sex couples can't get pregnant might give me pause to think, but, I'm not an evolutionist, and the no-biological children aspect of gay marriage is pretty immaterial to me.

One argument, which doesn't seem to have much to support it but is out there, is that, just like infertile couples may actually be evolutionary advantageous to the species by preventing overpopulation, gay and lesbian people also help to prevent overpopulation. It's not particularly good for the species if everyone reproduces, given that we have limited resources. Infertility is not inherited (obviously ;)), and either is homosexuality (gay parents don't produce gay kids the same way that brown-eyed parents produce brown-eyed kids--the current thinking tends to focus on the impact of hormones in the womb environment rather than on genes), so it's not like they're traits that would simply disappear from the population because those groups do not generally reproduce.

So from an evolutionary standpoint, the fact that gay and lesbian people don't reproduce doesn't make them any more a "liability" to the species than infertile people are. Now, if suddenly 50% of the population were gay, that would probably be a liability, just as it would if half the population were infertile, but since resources are limited, it's actually a good thing for the species as a whole that not everybody reproduces.

Plus there are other reasons for being anti-gay marriage than just seeing marriage purely for procreation.

I think the reasoning behind that would be that there are very few non-religious reasons for opposing gay marriage, and the fact that gay couples can't have children is the one of the most common ones given. Laws that affect everyone can't be enacted because of sectarian religious beliefs, so if gay marriage is going to remain illegal, there have to be non-religious reasons for it, and this is one of them. The only other non-religious rationale I've heard for keeping gay marriage illegal is that that's how things have always been, but marriage laws have changed so dramatically throughout history that that one just doesn't hold up. I guess the "they shouldn't be able to marry because they can't reproduce" argument seems more difficult to disprove historically, but this still seems like an abuse of democracy to me (although I think many ballot measures of abuses of democracy).

[Onyx]

I actually think it is a very smart move. It was made directly because of a decision by the Washington Supreme court. "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 a woman. In defending the act, the ruling specifically mentioned a state interest in furthering procreation."

Basically the ruling made the statement that the state wants men and women to marry each other so they have kids. Stupid? Yea. So while the activists don't actually expect this movement to pass, they are pointing out the stupidity of the logic of the court. That time article TOTALLY ignored the whole reason they are doing this. Here's a link to a better story, and I'll also post it below. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/302553_initiative06.html?source=mypi

[Onyx]

New initiative: No children? Then no marriage
'Absurd' idea aims to start discussion

By RACHEL LA CORTE
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

OLYMPIA -- 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 children 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 a woman. In defending the act, the ruling specifically mentioned a state interest in furthering procreation.

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. 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 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 time frame was arbitrary.

"We did toy with the idea of (requiring) procreation before marriage," he said. "We didn't want to (annoy) 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 that 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."

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."

The measure's backers said the two other initiatives they plan would prohibit divorce or separation when a married couple had 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.