Gay Marriage Group Tries New Tactic (Seeks Measure Mandating Married Couples Have Children In 3 Yrs

CBS News ^ | Feb 6, 2007 | Staff

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced an initiative that would put a whole new twist on traditional unions between men and women: It would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriages annulled...

Initiative 957 was filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, which was formed last summer after the State Supreme Court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage. In that 5-4 ruling, the court found that state lawmakers were justified in passing the 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which restricts marriage to unions between a man and a woman.

Under I-957, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children to get a marriage license...

"Absurd? Very," the group says on its web site..."But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about"...the Supreme Court's ruling.

[MichiganConservative]

If they can wreck traditional marriage and family structures they will be 90% of the way home.

Isn't it cool that the government is so intertwined with every facet of our lives that they can use the force of government to do that? Viva la government grande!

[trisham]

Best of luck to you and your wife. Chances are very good that you will be successful. Don't give up!

[chatham]

My Church says,"Homosexuals have a disordered mentality".

This latest act of "Tolerance" proves it.

[mvpel]

We spent about a decade without using birth control, until finally we went to Russia and adopted a beautiful, wonderful, unwanted child who had lived his entire life in either the hospital or an orphanage.

Here he is opening one of his pile of presents at his very first birthday party last Sunday, on the occasion of his third birthday:

It was very difficult and heartbreaking to work through the grief of our loss of the biological child we thought we would one day have, but we made it through.

Our new son - who arrived home on July 2 of last year - has filled our hearts with such joy and love in the seven short months he's been here, that there are really no words to describe it. He was the missing piece of our family. He's an absolute treasure, and we cherish every hug, kiss, smile, and giggle.

[antiRepublicrat]

This is a good counter to the argument that gays can't get married because they can't have kids together. You know, the "marriage is for procreation" argument. I always thought that was the lamest argument, and this shows why.

Hopefully, this will keep traditional marriage supporters to the strong arguments they do have.

[trisham]

He's just adorable. Good for you! And for him!

[SamuraiScot]

Under I-957, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children to get a marriage license

It's the childishness of homosexual lobbyists that always amazes me. Wanting all the perks of adults, while refusing to act like adults. On this organization's Web site, they explain the initiative in words to this effect: "The Christian Right says the purpose of marriage is to have children, and we can't have children—so we can't marry. Well, some of those . . . straight people can't have children, either, so there. We'll show you how it feels: We'll nullify your right to marry. After all, if you can't breed, you're just like us."

Their argument is basically Catholic-envy, since the Catholic Church has provisions for declaring that a marriage has been null. The Church says no marriage has taken place if the couple either didn't understand the step they were taking, or were unable or unwilling to live up to their promises.

Like most comfortably ignorant Leftists, the lobbyists think that the Church teaches that the only purpose of marriage is becoming baby machines. Not so. A man and woman incapable of having children together are still capable, in theological terms, of marriage. As Catholics are taught, there are two purposes to marriage: unitive and procreative. Sex in particular is a means of enhancing spiritual unity with your spouse. Procreation is a miraculous benefit of marriage that we must be open to; the unitive purpose is non-negotiable. Everyone understands this, on some level. The lobbyists' implicit claim is that homosexuality is unitive in a way that merits the name "marriage." But it's not truly unitive; it's thwarted and perverse, the refuge of people too hurt to identify with their own sex and bond with the opposite sex.

Perverse behavior can't be a sacrament. In secular terms, such relations are too damaged and unhealthy to serve as building blocks for society. These poor people are so confused that they've raised a good question. It has an an answer, and it's up to us to give it loud and clear. Everyone will benefit.

[JTHomes]

My wife and I would have met this requirement. In fact, we had the second one on the way by the third anniversary.

[alloysteel]

The gay marriage advocates should be careful about opening this can of worms.

If heteros have to produce children within three years, or face annulment, then homosexual couples have the same requirement. And once annulled, the homosexual couples would have to start the whole process of getting their marriage reinstated only after they have shown due diligence in learning whether they are physically capable of becoming parents.

Or we could just go to "limited" cohabitation contracts, which are renewed upon the payment of an annual fee to the civil authorities, in which children are not involved at all. The gender of the contracting individuals would not be a matter of concern to the civil authorities in the least, but evasion of payment of the annual fee would become a criminally prosecutable offense.

Take care what it is that you wish for.

[TheBattman]

So in other words - if my Wife and I lived there under this proposed law, we would currently be an unmarried couple with two children - we waited some 12 years to have our first child...

I sure miss the days when Homosexuals just stayed in the closet...

[mvpel]

People aren't getting the point of this, are they?

The point is that it demolishes one of the common arguments against gay marriage - "they can't procreate" - used as an excuse to deny legal recognition of their partnership under the "marriage" umbrella.

This is why it's best to refrain from such specious arguments when debating gay marriage, and stick to either getting the government out of the marriage business entirely, or focusing on the vast problems inherent in changing the meaning of the word "marriage" to include something that the authors of the laws had absolutely no intention of including.

[ElPatriota]

Probably another idea from the "Powder Room."

More of the same crap... trying to see if sticks... But I have news for the "ladies." The people, the NORMAL people is catching up to their tactics... They won't be as effective anymore... Sorry "ladies,"

[Quick1]

If marriage were re-defined, it would open the door to polygamy and plural marriages.

As long as all parties are consenting adults, what's the problem? The main issue with most polygamists is that they tend to be marrying off the 12 year old girls to the older males.

[jim35]

My heart goes out to you, you sound like a great couple. I hope that you will be blessed with some good news soon. How lucky a child would be to be born into your loving family:) jim's wife.

[beejaa]

"I imagine if the idea of same-sex marriage were floated even in the 1960-70's people would be appalled. See how times change?"

I'm one of the aging dinosaurs on this site, having been born in 1950.
In the 1960s, if a conservative had said that normalizing sex outside of marriage would eventually lead to same-sex marriage, people would have laughed at how hysterical some conservatives are, how driven by exaggerated fears. Gay marriage simply would not have been considered a realistic possibility except in the most radical circles. Ditto for GLSEN clubs. Homosexuals promoting tolerance of homosexuality in the schools? You've got to be kidding.
I remember rumors going around my (middle class) high school in conservative Richmond, VA, about a boy (one of the class leaders) and a girl who had been caught - hold your breath - making out!
I remember how restrained people were in talking about sexual matters back then. You can pick up on this a little from old television programs.
I also remember reading an article in the NY Times in the summer of 1971, about how a female student from Barnard and a male student from Columbia had decided to live together. It was a long article which speculated that this probably pointed to a new trend in society.
I also recollect someone scoffing at the idea with me that "nice girls don't do it" in the mid-1970s.
Notice how my recollections don't even touch on gay marriage. The new and shocking trends back then were sex outside of marriage and after that, cohabitation.

[beejaa]

"In the context of same-sex marriage, socially liberal people often bring up African-Americans not being allowed to marry whites (and vice versa) at one time."

The courts struck down the last barrier to interracial marriage in 1967. The automatic assumption back then was that interracial marriage would involve a man and a woman. Legitimazing interracial marriage was thus a true expansion of marriage because the basic tenants of marriage (male/female, don't marry a close relative, don't marry someone under age, etc.) were left intact. Gay marriage is not an expansion of marriage; it is a redefinition.

[bjcintennessee]

PING

[expatguy]

One vote changed this from a mental illness

[dleecomeback07]

We get under the wire. about 20 months.

[dleecomeback07]

A lot of black people I know are sick to the teeth of gays comparing their struggles as the same or even worse.

My friend tells me the difference is "You can hide the fact you're gay, you can't that you're black"