Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, February 6, 2007

Marriage proposal aimed at heterosexuals

February 6, 2007

Advertisement

— Same-sex marriage proponents have introduced a ballot measure that would require heterosexual couples to have a child within three years or have their marriages annulled.

The paperwork for the measure was submitted last month in Olympia. Supporters must gather at least 224,800 signatures by July 6 to put it on the November ballot.

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance hopes the idea prompts "discussion about the many misguided assumptions" underlying a state Supreme Court ruling that upheld a ban on same-sex marriage.

The proposed ballot measure would require couples to prove they can have children to get a marriage license. Couples who do not have children within three years could have their marriages annulled.

All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized," making those couples ineligible for marriage benefits.

Comments

willie_wildcat 7 years, 10 months ago

Who the hell do these people think they are?? Have a child or get your marriage annulled!?!?!? WTF!?!? Having a child should be the choice of the couple not the choice of the govt. I hope that it does not reach the ballot and that people are smart to see that all this is is a way to control people. To me this is an atttempt to take away a woman's reproductive rights. When will fools like this ever learn?

willie_wildcat 7 years, 10 months ago

Exactly.....Not everyone has that ability to bear children if they wanted. Yep the crackpots are just making themselves look dumber and dumber with each new attempt

Katara 7 years, 10 months ago

I am going to bed because I realized that I must be way too tired. I didn't even get the name of the book correct!

It is called "The History of the Wife" and it is an interesting book. I don't know if I agree with all of it but it was a good read.

http://www.amazon.com/History-Wife-Marilyn-Yalom/dp/0060931566/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_k2a_2_txt/104-8163819-1616762

denak 7 years, 10 months ago

This bill is meant to get people talking. No one seriously expects it to pass. However, they are playing with fire. Conservatives could sign the bill as a way to counteract it because they know (hope) that it will eventually be shot down.

This has happened before in very recent history.

In 1963 and 1964, when the House of Represenatives was debating the bill that would become the Civil Rights Act, certain members, most notably from the South, tried to sabotage the Act by adding amendment after amendment knowing it would never pass with all these amendments added on.

These amendments banned things such as discrimination in public areas and employement as well as segregation in public schools. They thought that these things would stop the bill in its tracks. But the Act kept clearing different committees.

Howard Smith, the Chaiman of the Rules comittee and a Virginia segregationist, got the idea of adding an amendment that would ban discrimination based on gender. In his mind, no way was a bill going to pass that banned both discrimination against African-Americans and women. He thought he had it all figured out.

Well, his tactics backfired. Not only did the bill pass the House, it went on to pass the Senate and became the Civil Right's Act of 1964.

I personally think same sex marriages should be legal.

However, I question the effectiveness of this particular tactic. It could backfire.

After all, in 1964, giving African-Americans and women rights was contrary to "thousands of years" of history and was thought to surely "destroy the American family."

jonas 7 years, 10 months ago

We don't need to hear about the marks left on your anatomy by either monogamy or adultery, thank you very much.

bearded_gnome 7 years, 10 months ago

very bad proposal. ban on same sex marriage, good. but, forcing marriages to be blessed with children: very bad law.
can't imagine that such a law, if even passed, could withstand judicial review!

funny how these issues weren't important just a few years ago. now, people in their overweening pride think they should change the definition of marriage, after thousands of years.

Katara 7 years, 10 months ago

The State makes procreation as one of the arguments for banning gay marriage, bearded_gnome.

The States claims one of the purposes for marriage is for procreation and the State claims it has an interest in protecting marriage from the big bad gays because of the procreation argument.

As if, procreation doesn't happen outside the confines of marriage in the traditional sense or as if gays can't procreate.

Both are stupid arguments for the State to make. The bill is legit in answering that argument but I don't think it is necessary. And I think this bill makes your point about bad law.

Marriage has never been a religious institution as some of the social conservatives like to claim. It is and always has been an economic institution.

monkeywrench1969 7 years, 10 months ago

My wife and I waited ten years before having our first partially to make sure we were finacially as well as emotionally ready. What is crazy to me is the more "open minded" people think they are...the more restrictive their suggestions become.

jonas 7 years, 10 months ago

This is a waste of time.

But pretty funny though. I'm not sure, however, that our government should be our tool for satire. It doesn't need any help to be rediculous, it does that all on it's own.

I think that the homosexual community needs to realize that its window of opportunity in which to potentially get some of these rights recognized has passed for the time being. It's a reactionary, over-reactionary world right now.

hottruckinmama 7 years, 10 months ago

what in the he!!? so what happens after the kid(s) turn 18? kind of gives a whole new meaning to having a baby to save the marriage huh? seriously though i think it may be time to allow homosexual people some sort of a civil union that they can enter into. even if we as a country are not ready to call it a marriage.

matahari 7 years, 10 months ago

maybe someone was thinking of the idiom, 'don't throw the baby out with the bathwater' they are reaching at straws~heck, this is pretty close to the insanity of one male child ideals...

hottruckinmama 7 years, 10 months ago

well r-t there is always dark make-up and you could just fake the rest. heck maybe you could be the next michael jackson.

jonas 7 years, 10 months ago

Dambudzo: Yes, I suppose I must stand corrected. Reactionary-Overreactionary about this particular issue.

jonas 7 years, 10 months ago

"Posted by right_thinker (anonymous) on February 7, 2007 at 8:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If only I could have been born black and gay...God knows how far I could get in this world......."

Yeah, you could be anonymously derided by trollers just like yourself!

imastinker 7 years, 10 months ago

I suppose the wife and I would be OK. We made it about 8 hours before getting pregnant with our first. She was born nine months and 5 days after the wedding.

It was the best thing I ever did.

Katara 7 years, 10 months ago

Posted by Dambudzo (anonymous) on February 7, 2007 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Marriage has never been a religious institution as some of the social conservatives like to claim. It is and always has been an economic institution."

Silly me, I always thought it was about "love". ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Arranged marriages? Political alliances through marriages?

Those things have been around far longer than the concept of marrying for love. Sorry to burst your bubble.

And since marriage is in economic institution, there is absolutely no reason to deny gays its benefits.

pelliott 7 years, 10 months ago

I love it, if they can't have children they shouldn't be allowed to be married. If people who can't have children are allowed to marry it will destroy the family. If marraige isn't about family it isn't a true marraige. i love it.

Katara 7 years, 10 months ago

Posted by Das_Ubermime (anonymous) on February 7, 2007 at 9:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Marriage is an economic institution? Huh. Maybe I should have had my accountant perform the service then...

If I had an accountant... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Marriages are currently performed by ship captains, judges and the occasional Elvis impersonator. Are you saying that none of the couples joined by them are not getting the legal benefits of marriage?

bearded_gnome 7 years, 10 months ago

and, once upon a time Katara, you also posted you believed marriage to be a form of prostitution.

Katara 7 years, 10 months ago

Posted by bearded_gnome (anonymous) on February 7, 2007 at 10:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

and, once upon a time Katara, you also posted you believed marriage to be a form of prostitution. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ That would be very incorrect. I have never posted that marriage is a form of prostitution. I have always posted that it is an economic institution.

Prostitution is accepting payment for sexual services. Marriage is much more than sex.

Katara 7 years, 10 months ago

Posted by couranna1 (anonymous) on February 7, 2007 at 10:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Having a child should be the choice of the couple not the choice of the govt. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Exactly, and as it should be with marriage.

Claire Williams 7 years, 10 months ago

Posted by Das_Ubermime (anonymous) on February 7, 2007 at 9:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Marriage is an economic institution? Huh. Maybe I should have had my accountant perform the service then...

If I had an accountant..."


Along with Katara's point about judges and such as officiant, marriage might have been a solely religious institution at one point, but when government began to confer benefits based upon marital status, it sure as heck entered the economical realm.

However Das_Ubermine, if you are only interested in the religious side of things, you should have just had a priest perform the service and never gotten a marriage license. After all, why should tax breaks and health benefits matter to you, as long as you are married in the eyes of God?

;)

bearded_gnome 7 years, 10 months ago

Katara, my apology, my memory card may have gone over buffer.

Katara 7 years, 10 months ago

Accepted, gnome.

I am trying to recall the name of the author who wrote an excellent book on the history of marriage but I am having a memory card buffering moment too. She also wrote "The History of the Breast" if that helps any one.

Anyhow, this is probably fairly simplistic but I think this helps show what I mean about marriage being an institution and not a religious institution. Please bear in my that I'm sleepy so I took the lazy way out on the Google.

'Most ancient societies needed a secure environment for the perpetuation of the species,a system of rules to handle the granting of property rights, and the protection of bloodlines. The institution of marriage handled these needs."

"Throughout history, and even today, families arranged marriages for couples. The people involved didn't and don't have much to say about the decision. Most couples didn't marry because they were in love but for economic liasons."

The Church took a role in marriage in early times because actually the Church was one of the groups that spoke up in favor of the couple's consent to marriage. Prior to those times, it didn't matter whether the couple wanted to be married or not but having a priest or other religious person officiate or give legitimacy to marriage did not occur until much. much later.

"There appeared to be many marriages taking place without witness or ceremony in the 1500's. The Council of Trent was so disturbed by this, that they decreed in 1563 that marriages should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses. Marriage took on a new role of saving men and women from being sinful, and of procreation. Love wasn't a necessary ingredient for marriage during this era."

All info from http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm

The Council of Trent seem to be a big turning point in how marriage was viewed.

I see what you are saying Das_Ubermime. The ceremony itself is/can be religious but the institution is not. I think while we're talking the same genus of animal, we're not talking the same species.

The fundamental nature of marriage is not a religious one. It is to protect property rights, inheritance rights & bloodlines (especially if you are talking royalty).

Political alliances through marriage existed way before organized religion. It happens in many tribal cultures today.

It is hard to wage a war against a family that not only one of your members is now a part of but also your grandchildren.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.