Is this initiative a reasonable response?

Question

From http://www.kndo.com/Global/story.asp?S=6026820&nav=menu484_2_8:


"KENNEWICK, Wash.- A new initiative is turning heads around the state as the gay-marriage debate heats up again.

Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed has accepted Iinitiative 957, a response by gay rights activists to a State Supreme Court ruling last summer.

The Washington Supreme Court ruled that the state could prevent gay and lesbian couples from marrying because the state has a legitimate interest in preserving marriage for procreation.

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance then filed the initiative.

I-957 has five clauses that would have to be met for a legal marriage.

It would allow only couples capable of having kids to marry, and that they file "proof of procreation" within three years of the marriage. If not, the marriage would be annulled."

What do you think? Is this initiative a reasonable response? Does it have a chance in Hades of passing?

Answer 1

It's symbolic, not serious. I'm sure it won't pass. The idea is to raise the point that the objections to SSM--that there are no kids made (though sometimes there are), that marriage is for procreation, etc.--could apply to many currently legal mixed-sex marriages. I think the point should be made, but I don't like this method. It will take up taxpayer time and money, and probably be misinterpreted. I think it's more important to try allying with childless/childfree mixed-sex couples.

Answer 2

It has no chance of passing -- it is reasonable -- but it does not take into account (or perhaps it does) the fact that the real reason for anti-gay marriage is prejudice, exactly the same as it was for laws forbidding interracial marriage in yesteryear. The argument that it was "for the children" was false. The argument that it is to prevent marriages of people who can't procreate is also false. People want to be bigots, but they don't want to call it that. So they come up with elaborate blinds -- things like -- well, that they are really interested in preserving marriage for procreation. This sort of counter initiative may not pass, but it certainly reveals their agenda nicely, I would think.

Regards,

Reynolds Jones
[e-mail]
http://www.rebuff.org

Answer 3

No, it has no chance of passing, and it wasn't MEANT TO. That's right, its not meant to pass, JUST GET ATTENTION.

The attention its trying to draw is that NOT ALL STRAIGHT couples can have children or even want too! That means only "fertile people" could marry, and then ONLY if they agreed to have children in a limited timeframe. Therefore it fails on the face that it intrudes on civil liberties, that's why its just there to make a point. To show that Straight people are putting FALSE limits on marriage (i.e., its for procreation, "well, if so, you should procreate and have children!!!"). See? Don't say its for procreation, when its not.

Answer 4

Sounds to me like it would be a boon for the gay-marriage crowd. If a woman doesn't conceive within 3 years, the marriage is annulled? So, no one past menopause could marry, nor could anyone with a hysterectomy, vasectomy, tubal ligation, low sperm count, etc. It would make a "mockery" of the entire "legal" marriage industry and make a whole lot more people "illegal" than those who are homosexual. It is the perfect way to show how STUPID the right-wing reactionary politicians are who want to make marriage exclusive to heterosexuals.

Answer 5

If only the last paragraph of his "initiative" were considered. then the idea is offensive in the extreme. Not only to gay people but to any who may be unable to conceive but wish for companionship and sex.
The person's brain is in a bad way, a touch of the old Nazi methods here.
Rose P.

Answer 6

Hell no. I don't think there is any way that this can pass. Think about this, even the couples who are man and woman would have to have children within three years and we all know that not all of these couples want to have children. This is one of the stupidest bills I've heard of in a long time.

Answer 7

I most hopefully, hope not! What a crush for loving, infertile couples that could provide loving homes to children in need. It is bad enough that they won't let loving gay couples acknowledge their relationships.

Answer 8

well, for a sense of fairness to all, it is better than most. In fact, I prefer the idea of NO marriages by ANYONE, no tax breaks, no special crap just because people get married. It is ridiculous to award some who choose to marry with tax incentives at my expense. Cut all the crap out and we will have real equality...no one gets married. I suspect this would have considerable support with many, Straight and/or Gay.

Answer 9

in no way, ever call them lower back. in case you got the interest they could call you. in the event that they dont call then you havent. many times all of people who had an interview get a decision to tell them the determination, its impolite in the event that they in no way call you.