2007/02/07

No Children - No Marriage In Washington

Using a strategy that practically buries the needle on the Blognonymous irony meter, the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance has filed initiative 957, a measure that would require that heterosexual couples produce children within three years or have their marriages annulled by the state. In fact, the initiative goes one step further requiring that couples "prove" their ability to have children before they can even obtain a marriage license.

"Why is this ironic?" you might ask. Well...the WDMA actually favors homosexual marriage rights. They're using this initiative to undermine the central argument of conservatives: "Marriage is primarily for the purpose of procreation". They're counting on the initiative being tossed by that Washington State Supreme Court, a ruling that would undercut the court's own opinion from last summer where they upheld a gay-marriage ban.

And herein is the problem. First, courts are very reluctant to reverse their own rulings even when the reversal is implicit. The court might just say, "You know, you're right. The law could be construed this way." Michigan did it with adultery. Why not Washington with marriage? Second, though many conservatives may consider this an infringement on their rights, there's a sizable fringe contingent that will look at this legislation and say, "Hell yes! God's plan! Make 'em produce kids!" And you just know that if this initiative gets on the ballot the kooks will flock to the polls to support it.

27 Comments:

Good heavens, that's ill-conceived, though I can understand the motivation. It's kind of like Rangel calling for a draft to oppose the war, I suppose.
Yikes - That means by marriage will be annulled this October!
Boy, that would bust up a lot of marriages.
Whew...I've already done my share. But since my spouse shuffled off this mortal coil some twenty-odd years ago, does that mean if I were to rouse myself from my computer and my books and get myself out there and snag me another one, I'd have to start all over again? I'm waaaaay too tired for that. In fact, I'm too tired to even contemplate living in sin.
It's kind of like Rangel calling for a draft to oppose the war, I suppose.

Betty...it is indeed.

Comandante...means my marriage would have been annulled 14 years and 5 months ago! :-)
Peacechick...agreed. Ironically, it might also serve to bust up a few marriages that are in need of busing up. I can't count the number of times that I've heard, "We had children in order to strengthen our marriage, which I hear as..."Our marriage was unhappy, so we had kids in order to give us a reason to stay together."

Cranky... Nope, can't do that. I assume by you comment that you past the "child-rearin'" years. So, under that initiative you wouldn't be allowed to marry because you can't have kids.
I'd argue with that remark by Betty Craker, but I don't want to take this thread to far off course. I like the concept of this baby making proposal, but it could definitely backfire.
Is there something in the water that we've completely lost our ability to think rationally?? Don't answer that ...
Fred... Intuitively, I like it as well. It just seems a little dangerous because initiatives like these tend to backfire. As I mentioned, in Michigan now you can get life in prisonment for adultery.

we've completely lost our ability to think rationally?

CitizenBoo, welcome to Blognonymous. Well at least in some parts of the country, it seems.
It's an inventive idea. But the problems you mentioned could be serious concerns.

Remind me not to commit adultery in Michigan ;-). Eep!!
Good way to advertise one's idiocy, eh.

I sure hope it works out that way and the Court sees its mistake.

We'll see.
Betty Cracker said...
Good heavens, that's ill-conceived


Did everyone else miss this? I am ROTFLMAO! ;)
I thought about this very idea quite awhile ago. The religious right is always screeming that marriage is to procreate and since gay couples can not have children they shouldn't be allowed to marry.

My idea was that before a couple could get married they would have to pass a fertility test proving that they could have children before they could get a marriage license.

If they could not have children then they shouldn't be allowed to marry as they wouldn't be able to procreate.

I know its screwy, but it bites them in the ass to there reasoning.

As it is there are more people getting divorce now than ever before and a lot of children are living with only one parent.

And yes it could come back and bite us in the ass.
Well, if it does pass, i guess I could never be married in Washington, having gone through the dreaded vasectomy.
Pam... OK, don't commit adultery in Michigan, but especially don't get married in Washington and then commit adultery in Michigan.

Michael... I just wonder about all the crazies who'll sign on to get the signatures.

John... Good catch! I totally missed it! :-) :-) :-)
Lew... not only would you not be able to marry, the next step would be to retroactively dissolve your marriage for "not following God's commandment".

AnonP... what about people who are just unlucky? They test as fertile, but then...no kids. Trying to do the Lord's work but failing.
I guess now all single women over 35 really have a better chance of dying in a terrorist attack than getting married...Yikes!
kvatch...
If they can prove they tried than they would be allowed to stay married.

If not they would have to be given a no-fault divorce.

And if they were previously married and had children then they would not have too have any more as they fulfilled the Lord's work already.

God Bless.
that is stooooopid
When I first read about this (I live in Washington) I thought it was a good idea, just for the irony. But now that you mention it, the law of unintended consequences could indeed take hold and we'd actually be stuck with that law.

My marriage of 23 years would be annulled.
blech.
what's next?
wait, please don't answer that.
I say let'em pass it. Whether or not it will lead to the desired result (getting gay marriage passed) remains to be seen.

I predict there will be a dramatic drop in marriages and more children being born out of wedlock.

Marriage in this country for the most part is a fucking joke with over 50% of marriages ending in divorce.
Fashiongirl...yeah that fertility thing is a real bitch. I didn't read about an exception for age. ;-)

Graeme... Well as the PoliShifter points out, it's certainly dangerous.

Tom... Your's and mine both. Mine would have been annulled about 14 years ago.
Annie... When I first read the article, I thought that it was a fundy group trying to go 'all the way' on the marriage for procreation thing. I was really shocked when it turned out to be a gay marriage rights group.

PoliS... is it 50% now? Wow! I'm so blissfully happy in my marriage (you reading this Frogette?), that I tend not to think about the stats too much.
I don't have anything to say. I guess my wife and I should get to work before Minnesota goes crazy too. We have been married 8 years and only have 2 dogs and 2 cats
Hilarious.
Scott...git on it man! As I was once told by a fundy that I was facing off with, "If you and your wife don't have kids, you're just 'playing house'."

Julien...true, but in a horrific, "...what have we wrought?!" sort of way.

Add a comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link