Marriage ... have kids with in 3 years or annulled... trying to pass law ...?

Question

okay i heard this news story and I guess in CA. USA there is an idea that they are tring to get on a ballot...
it said that:
If you marry you must have kids with in 3 years or your marriage is annulled.

I know this will never pass due to people not wanting kids, people who can't have kids...
it is the only way they can find to not allow gay marriage...

frankly i think this idea is crap! What do you think i am looking for objective views! if your married how would you feel if you had no choice but to have a kid or your marrage was just a figment of your imagination!

if i'm wrong then stop me but isn't marriage about LOVE?

but not everyone is on the same page with religion... thanks for the corrections dude!

I do feel more peeps are getting married for love! I can understand that the marriage is to procreate but if that was a reliagon or Gods way then we all would beable to have kids!

Answer 1

I would be appalled if something like that ever passed. It would, of course, immediately be overturned as unconstitutional. I have been married for several years and we have no children. For us, it is not a matter of not wanting kids - it just hasn't happened. Having or not having kids had nothing to do with our choice to get married. We got married because we love each other.

Answer 2

Objectively, this legislation is clearly a violation of the right to privacy and procreate. We have a constitutional right to determine whether and when to have a family. Under this rule, my marriage would be annulled because I've been married for seven years and we do not have children.

The purpose of marriage is not just children, it is to create your own idea of a family - even if that does not or cannot include children. Marriage is a secular/legal, not religious institution and believing it is religious does not make it so. Defending the institution of marriage is a ridiculous notion: only the people participating in their own union can protect their own marriage. These are the same people who are probably against no-fault divorce.

Answer 3

It's not in CA -- it's in WA -- and it's a voter initiative led by a group with "Defense of Marriage" in its title. The whole point is that conservatives argue that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because the point of marriage is procreation, and gay couples can't do that. They're challenging this assumption by trying to pass a law requiring heterosexual couples to procreate (after all... the point of marriage is procreation!). Of course it's not going to pass, and of course even if it would pass it would be unconstitutional. The point is now we are thinking about that underlying rationale given by conservatives equating marriage (and its LEGAL benefits) with procreation (and its RELIGIOUS benefits).

Answer 4

i've got no longer heard this, yet whilst it rather is authentic it rather is carefully loopy. human beings do no longer continually choose young infants. Marriage is relating to the union of two souls. young infants are merely one extra blessing. as properly it took me 2 years to even get pregnant what approximately individuals that have a extra stable time than I did. to no longer point out which will merely effect in extra infants out of wedlock because of the fact human beings would be attempting to have young infants in the previous they are married and then all of us be attentive to there are various people who get scared whilst young infants surely come interior the photograph and that they leave.

Answer 5

It is about love, so why are there then so many marriage benefits?

Take away the benefits and I couldn't car eless whom marries whom.


I am conservative, but I was appalled when i heard about those people trying to push that i.

Answer 6

You can't imagine how much I hate those "defense of marriage" people. Most of them have probably cheated on their spouse or are divorced anyway.