Before you answer, I should tell you it has nothing to do with gay marriage. It has to do with procreation.
http://www.wa-doma.org/
2007-04-09 19:22:46 · 9 answers · asked by STFU Dude 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
absolutely not...marriage shouldn't be based on the ability to procreate....
2007-04-09 19:29:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
What a brilliant idea!
Of course, it really does have something to do with gay marriage. The point is to demonstrate the absurdity of legally binding procreation to marriage, so that court decisions based on this concept will look as stupid as they in fact are. It's definitely an unusual approach, but since the obvious approach of saying the government shouldn't legislate love hasn't been working, maybe it's time to give absurdity a chance.
Apparently most people who answered this question either did not read the article, or somehow managed to totally miss the point. Of course the law would be unconstitutional, it says so right on the website! They're trying to pass a bill that makes procreation a requirement of marriage, so that the state court will strike it down as unconstitutional. This same court ruled against same-sex marriage because same-sex couples can't procreate. So if the court is forced to strike down the law, they would be setting a precedent that procreation is NOT a requirement for married couples. Besides making the court look very silly, this would essentially reverse the previous ruling on gay marriage, without ever taking another gay marriage case to court. It's really a very clever strategy, when you think about it.
2007-04-10 03:25:54 · answer #2 · answered by abram.kelly 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Marriage should be a commitment between two people who love each other and want to create a life together. Procreation will happen regardless of governmental influence in a free country.....lets not forget that 90% of the population are straight.
Anyone who creates a child, male or female, should be responsible for that childs well being...in a perfect world.
Government does not belong in the bedroom or in the church...or vise verse.
In summary. Marriage should, as far as government goes, be a legal contract between people. Nothing more. In your church and family it can be sacred.
2007-04-09 19:47:10 · answer #3 · answered by universatile love 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A stupid and I would say un-Constitutional idea. Thinks you better read it first. It has everything to do with trying to legally ban gay marriage. Have you thought about the follow part of the Initiative......"allows the Legislature to limit marriage to those couples able to have and raise children together." So if you are a married man and a woman and for whatever reason are infertile you must immediately get divorced or if you knew of your infertility before marriage you could not marry?
2007-04-09 19:39:35 · answer #4 · answered by ndmagicman 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
That is CRAZY. It means that people that don't want children right away, or that can't have them for medical reasons (or age like in elderly people that get remarried) can't be leagally married. This is insane. It means that, technically, my borther and his wife in Spokane wouldn't be considered married becasue they haven't had kids and aren't gong to. It also means that pelple that might not be able to afford children, or that shouldn't have then to begin with would have to have them in order to be considered married. To HELL with that noise.
Marriage is a completely and solely religious institution. The courts, governments and the like need to stay OUT of it.
2007-04-10 10:06:43 · answer #5 · answered by gotherunereadings 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I would never support such nonsense. What if two people want to get married and one of them is infertile. Would that mean they can't marry? What if a couple gets married and doesn't have children? Would the government seize their contraceptives? I cant believe I'm seriously talking about this. Is this a joke?
2007-04-09 20:12:39 · answer #6 · answered by out of the grey 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think it's humorous in a poetic justice sort of way... but I don't think that the best way to confront bigots is by turning their bigotry against them, and with them many others.
No, I wouldn't support it.
2007-04-09 19:48:02 · answer #7 · answered by Snark 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No the gov already has more control over my life than I care for...this would be just one more thing for Uncle SAM to hang over my head
2007-04-09 19:29:10 · answer #8 · answered by † H20andspirit 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, it violates my religious beliefs.
2007-04-09 19:26:33 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋