Have a child or have your marriage annulled....

[Ping898]

I just thought this was kind of funny, that it showed thinking outside of the box and trying to do more than a brute force attack to get what they want. I don't know that it will spark the discussions they want, but they have nothing to loose....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070206/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_washington

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.
...
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 group said the proposal was aimed at "social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation."

 

[Carol]

Gee, that could have saved me a divorce proceeding...

 

[morph4me]

I love it, "sauce for the goose", of course the logic will be lost on those that it's directed at.

 

[SFC JeffJ]

I love it, "sauce for the goose", of course the logic will be lost on those that it's directed at.

Yeah, the only rhetoric they can understand is their own.

 

[tellner]

The only danger is that it will pass and be upheld

 

[matt.m]

Well, if this idiocy passes then my marriage will be annulled.....I have been married 6 yrs. and no kids yet. Some people are trouble makers.......

That is all I can say on this board, if I continued I am sure I would be banned.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

wow. now, was this proposal set up in earnest, or are people trying to point out how ridiculous the conservative religious right's claims about marriage are?

 

[SFC JeffJ]

wow. now, was this proposal set up in earnest, or are people trying to point out how ridiculous the conservative religious right's claims about marriage are?

I'm pretty sure it is trying to point out the ridiculousness of the religious right's claims.

 

[Ping898]

wow. now, was this proposal set up in earnest, or are people trying to point out how ridiculous the conservative religious right's claims about marriage are?

From the article:

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.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

thanks, ping.

that'll teach me to skim.

 

[BrandiJo]

haha maybe i should wait on getting married, George and i dont want children for atleast 5 years. I wonder if people will get the message or if it will be totaly lost

 

[Rich Parsons]

I just thought this was kind of funny, that it showed thinking outside of the box and trying to do more than a brute force attack to get what they want. I don't know that it will spark the discussions they want, but they have nothing to loose....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070206/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_washington

Hmmmm, So let me get this straight. If one chooses not to have children then their marriage is not valid. If one cannot physically have children then the marriage is invalid. So all those who adopted and had some form fertility treatment could be under review.

Oh wait this would be for same sex couple only. So we are trying to discriminate against people but make us feel like we are not discriminating against people so we can feel good? Is that how it is?


Hmmmm, I wonder how this would stand up in court.

 

[Kacey]

The measure would require couples to prove they can have children to get a marriage license.

This was a nice line too... even in jest. Just how detailed would the proof have to be? And what would happen if one member of the couple was proven incapable of having children naturally, but could through artificial insemination? Where would the line be drawn? The sad thing is, many of those who are truly in favor of banning all marriages save those between one man and one woman would not see anything wrong with this - especially those who believe that sexual intercourse should only occur to engender children.

 

[Flatlander]

You know, I had heard this headline yesterday, but didn't know the context. When I heard it, I thought, wtf is that all about? I actually thought that it was some lunatic proposal from the religious right. However, now knowing the backstory, I think it's kind of funny. Irresponsible, but funny.

 

[Ping898]

You know, I had heard this headline yesterday, but didn't know the context. When I heard it, I thought, wtf is that all about? I actually thought that it was some lunatic proposal from the religious right. However, now knowing the backstory, I think it's kind of funny. Irresponsible, but funny.

I don't know that I agree with you that it is irresponsible. I mean the organization actively admits it is doing this to raise awareness and try to spark debate and the way I understanf it, no time was being wasted in the courts or in the legislature about this. It sounds as if it is just members of the group who are involved talking to people to get the signitures....how is that irresponsible?

 

[Flatlander]

how is that irresponsible?

Well, just insofar as they're pursuing a result that they themselves admit isn't reasonable. I empathize with their agenda, but I think that to pull such a stunt in the interest of raising awareness is just that, pulling a stunt. They have no intent to see this become law, at least I certainly hope that they don't. In that regard, they're kind of wasting their effort. In this circumstance, I don't think that the end really justifies the means. I'd rather see them approaching the raising of awareness through more positive means. I'm more of an advocate for the high road.

 

[Ping898]

Well, just insofar as they're pursuing a result that they themselves admit isn't reasonable. I empathize with their agenda, but I think that to pull such a stunt in the interest of raising awareness is just that, pulling a stunt. They have no intent to see this become law, at least I certainly hope that they don't. In that regard, they're kind of wasting their effort. In this circumstance, I don't think that the end really justifies the means. I'd rather see them approaching the raising of awareness through more positive means. I'm more of an advocate for the high road.

Ok, I see your point that they may have been better off taking the higher road...however, when I look in the dictionary for irresponsible, I see its definition and synonmns to be : undependable, unreliable, thoughtless, showing a lack of care for consequences....so if the ends don't justify the means, and just cause they are doing this and don't expect it to become law, how is that irresponsible? When I think irresponsible, I think of like a teenager who never does his chores, or a parent who leaves a 5 year old home alone....I don't get how this falls into that category...it seems to me that they have thought through exactly what they are trying to accomplish with this...

 

[donna]

I think it would be irresponsible if the law was to go through. Imaging the poor children born to couples who didnt really want children but felt they "Had" to have one to justify their marriage.

 

[Ping898]

I think it would be irresponsible if the law was to go through. Imaging the poor children born to couples who didnt really want children but felt they "Had" to have one to justify their marriage.

That I do agree with...regardless of anyone that felt they "had" to have a child, you suddenly at that point begin to waste the time of people not involved with your project like the courts and legislature....

 

[Infinite]

You all relize this is a throwback to the middle ages right?

Back then you could divorce your wife (paramount to death back then) if she didn't give you children and more specifically an heir.

Sometimes I weep for the human race and their pention for the darkness.

--Infy.