What do you think about Initiative 957 in the Washington state legislature requiring married couples to have a

Question

baby within three years of marriage or have their marriage annulled? Here are the details of the Initiative:

Interesting story today: The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance has introduced an initiative in the state legislature. Here are the details, as posted on their website at http://www.wa-doma.org/
_________

Initiative 957
If passed by Washington voters, the Defense of Marriage Initiative would:
- add the phrase, “who are capable of having children with one another” to the legal definition of marriage;
- require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;
- require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as “unrecognized;”
- establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and

- make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits.

What we are about
The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance seeks to defend equal marriage in this state by challenging the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling on Andersen v. King County. This decision, given in July 2006, declared that a “legitimate state interest” allows the Legislature to limit marriage to those couples able to have and raise children together. Because of this “legitimate state interest,” it is permissible to bar same-sex couples from legal marriage.
The way we are challenging Andersen is unusual: using the initiative, we are working to put the Court’s ruling into law. We will do this through three initiatives. The first would make procreation a requirement for legal marriage. The second would prohibit divorce or legal separation when there are children. The third would make the act of having a child together the legal equivalent of a marriage ceremony.

Absurd? Very. But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions which make up the Andersen ruling. By getting the initiatives passed, we hope the Supreme Court will strike them down as unconstitional and thus weaken Andersen itself. 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."
_________________

I think this is actually a very good illustration of how to dismantle an opponent's argument, and it does well what it means to do; illustrate the flaw of arguing against same-sex marriage based on the assumption that the only reason for marriage between a man and a woman is to create children.

Because of the success of this argument, I wonder if an Initiative would be embraced by any state or the U.S. legislature allowing a mother to murder her child up to the age of three years old, since (according to pro-abortion arguing points):

- the toddler is smaller than a teen or an adult;
- the toddler is less developed than a teen or an adult;
- the toddler is utterly dependent on other adults for his or her survival, and;
- the toddler is generally not recognized as sentient, or self-aware, since most of us do not have any memory of being younger than three.
- the mother would not have to provide reasons for her actions, but some reasons that might surface are;
* the baby would interfere with the mother’s education;
* the baby would be better off dead than live with a disability;
* the baby is being or has been abused, and would therefore be better off dead, or;
* the baby’s mother is having financial difficulties and needs to lighten her load – additionally the baby would be better off dead than poor.

Absurd? Very. But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions which make up Roe v. Wade. By getting the initiatives passed, we hope the Supreme Court will strike them down as unconstitional and thus weaken Roe itself. And at the very least, it should be good fun to see the pro-abortion lobby who have long screamed that abortion should be legal because an unborn child is not a person be forced to choke on their own rhetoric.

Answer 1

Intriguing! Infertility used to be grounds for divorce.

To be consistent, it would have to require a couple whose only child dies to divorce. Generally, we just don't slice the cheese that fine. I think it's enough to acknowledge the natural order and millennia of practice.

I think the argument against same-sex marriage is that men and women are different. Equal in the eyes of the law, but not identical. They're a matched set! We allow "segregated" single-sex restrooms (which some have called "heteronormative"), so these differences are allowed in law.

Let them propose their law, and watch it fail. Case closed - unless a wacko judge gets involved.

Then again - parts two and three look pretty good. And maybe we could work on one and touch it up a bit - five years might be more realistic. What a nightmare for the proponents if it passed, was upheld by courts, and was popular!!! What a boon for society if people who had children had to stay and support them!!! I'm an attorney and don't see anything unconstitutional in the law, burdensome as it might be. The concepts set forth were all societal norms until recently.

Then again, homosexuality was frowned upon, until recently. Some would say it still is.

Look up "covenant marriage."

Interesting twist regarding abortion. I really appreciate all the thought that went into it. :)

Answer 2

Well, why don't we just go ahead and lose our minds while we're at it. LOL. Attempting to subjugate married persons into having children when they may or may not be ready is R. I. Diculous. Moreover, the manipulation of legislation to castigate the institution of marriage is downright stupid. It is absolutely no wonder that America has one of the highest divorce rates in the world. Furthermore, our constant upheaval and flagrant disregard for the mores that made this country great are or will be its own undoing. Hooraaah for the braindead: gays, lesbians, pedophiles, murderers, adulterers, etc.

Answer 3

I heard about this. Its completely ridiculous. They are following the argument that "marriage is for the purpose of procreation only" which is just nonsense. So what happens if you are infertile, you cant get married? If you want to marry someone you should be able to for your own purposes. And what if older people (like the woman has already gone through menopause) get married? Dont tell me they cant either? Sheesh

Answer 4

oh my god, do we have any rights anymore! having children should be a private personal decision between a married couple. should a couple who are not mentally, spiritually, or financially stable be MADE to have a child just because they are married? what a load of DUNG! whats next, the government coming into our bedrooms, pulling up a chair to watch us do the "DEED" only to give us a play by play with a red pointer telling us what we did wrong there too? c'mon you have to be INSANE to actually support this DOODOO! let people decide for themselves when and if they even want to "pro-create".

Answer 5

I think its absurd, just as the people who wrote it think its absurd. Just as absurd as telling same sex couples they can't marry or have the same benefits as married couples. Thats what the initiative is about, shoving absurdity down ridiculous peoples throats. Apparently many people are not quite realizing their hypocrisy yet.

Answer 6

The New World Order is gonna need a lot of slaves.

Answer 7

Ha. The people who are having children aren't getting married anyway!

Answer 8

It is what we have come to expect from the left coast. I am surprised it wasn't started in California.

Answer 9

That sounds a bit unfair. I wonder who would vote for such crap.

Answer 10

It's just another group of liberals that want to force people into changing their private lives.

Can't they just let us be?