If You’re Not Making Babies You Shouldn’t Be Married!
February 8th, 2007 | by Ken Grandlund |At least that’s the presumption behind the latest proposed ballot measure being pushed in Washington State by Same-Sex marriage advocates. Call it a case of making opponents of gay marriage put out or shut up.
The initiative, if passed, would limit marriage in the state of Washington to couples who prove they can bear children within three years of marriage or else have that union dissolved. And all other marriages that did not produce children would become unrecognized, making such couples ineligible for marriage benefits.
The group pushing the ballot measure admit that such a bill would be absurd, but their actions have a lot of people talking, and that my friends, is the whole point.
In 2006 the State Supreme Court ruled that the state has a ‘legitimate interest’ limiting marriage to couples able to have and raise children together, so this group also has two other initiatives in the works- one that would prohibit divorce or legal separation where there are children and another that would make the act of having children the legal equivalent of a marriage ceremony.
So no more unwed teen parents? No more second or third marriages for older folks? No more marrying for money?
The real goal, as stated before, is to open the door on the absurd assertions used to justify the discrimination that homosexual couples face in our society. The second goal though is to get the initiatives passed and then struck down by the courts, thus invalidating the premise on which the initial ruling was based.
Personally, I hope they get this on the ballot. Not because I agree with the concept of ‘No babies, No marriage’ but simply because I believe in equality.
And just think about this…if the ballot measure were to get on the ballot and actually pass and not get overturned, a whole bunch of bible-thumping and/or mean-spirited social conservatives would soon find themselves living in unrecognized marriages, forcing a loss of partner benefits and all the social niceties that go with marriage. I don’t imagine that would sit too well, so they’d probably have to admit that marriage is about love and companionship as much as about raising kids, and let the gay population enjoy those rights too.
(The down side would of course be that the gay rights groups will have set themselves back even farther.)
[tag]gay+marriage, Washington+Defense+of+Marriage+Alliance, equality, marriage, gay+rights[/tag]
19 Responses to “If You’re Not Making Babies You Shouldn’t Be Married!”
By Dr. Forbush on Feb 8, 2007 | Reply
Ken,
I heard this yesterday. So, either the Christians are on board with this crazy law, or their Gay Marriage argument falls apart. The trouble is that I believe some of the loonies actually think that this is a good idea…
By SteveIL on Feb 8, 2007 | Reply
Ken Grandlund said:
Actually, I wouldn’t mind seeing it on the ballot too. Only to see it go down to an overwhelming and humiliating defeat. And the only thing people will talk about is “who are these nuts to put something like this up for a vote?”. Because its a ridiculous premise to begin with.
At least they aren’t going through the courts trying to say there’s some “civil right” being violated. I’ll give them credit for that.
By tammara on Feb 8, 2007 | Reply
oh for christ sake.
By ken grandlund on Feb 8, 2007 | Reply
SteveIL- The ballot measure proponents also do not want to see these ideas become law, and if you’d gone to their site, you would see that they readily admit such laws would be “absurd.”
The whole point is to open eyes to the ridiculous notion that marriage is primarily about procreation, a basis of the Washington State Supreme Court’s decision to ban gay marriages in the first place.
If it did make the ballot and get defeated, it would only offer de facto evidence that the position that marriage should be defended against gays because of the procreation angle is an absurd notion and thus not valid for denying gay people the right to marry.
And in fact, if it did pass, they fully expect a court challenge that would overturn the proposed statutes for that reason- you can’t force people to have kids or expect that to be a valid definition for marriage.
And yet I wonder if you feel that the S.Dakota abortion law (designed to provoke a challenge in the courts re: civil rights and abortion) was a valid legislative action for the same reason you say you give credit to this group for going the ballot way…
By SteveIL on Feb 8, 2007 | Reply
As I mentioned, Ken, I’m glad they’re going through the ballot measure. And as far as that S.D. abortion measure, the voters said they didn’t want an abortion law as strict as the one as written. I’m assuming that a much less restrictive abortion law is still in place there, right? Gee, not a bad idea leaving a measure like this to the people instead of relying on “elites” and “scientists” and “pundits”. Guess they got it right. Yet, if they had voted for it, it would have been just as valid, right? At least until some activist judge overturned it.
States rights. Legislation by legislators. Democracy. Gotta love it.
By ken grandlund on Feb 8, 2007 | Reply
In general, I support the voters decisions on how they spend state monies, who they elect (whether I agree or not), and whether they need certain social laws or not.
When it comes to concepts like equality under the law or the right to dictate what a person does with their body I don’t trust the will of the voter to assure those concepts remain unviolated. Because religious beliefs do not trump the overall rights of humanity, as described by man in our own constitution.
And you similarly don’t seem to validate the concept of ‘leaving it to the people” either in all cases do you? After all, Hamas was popularly elected to govern the Palestinians and I doubt you agree with that position. But isn’t that vote just as valid too?
By Dr. Forbush on Feb 8, 2007 | Reply
SteveL,
Since the anti-Gay crowd uses children as an argument for preventing homosexuals from being married, this proposal makes the religious right put their ideology to the test. If children is the criteria for marriage this law makes sense to them. If the law doesn’t make sense to them, then their argument is invalid. So, if the proposal goes down to an overwhelming and humiliating defeat, it means that this argument is invalid in the arena of public opinion. And, if this argument is invalid what is the reason to deny marriage to homosexuals?
The point of these proposals is to show that the denial of marriage to homosexuals comes down to descrimination, which is civil rights violation.
By Tom Baker on Feb 8, 2007 | Reply
Sure, SteveIL lets just let all the states determine what is discrimination and what isn’t. Worked well in my beloved South for all those years. We are not in the habit of letting the mob determine civil rights. Oh I know boo hooo you don’t believe it’s a human rights issue. Well that’s because you sir are an (censored do to our no personal attack policy, damn I hate enforcing my own rules). It is the epitome of a human rights issue when someone isn’t allowed the same rights as other tax paying citizens in their country. But a guy like you doesn’t really give a crap.
Arguing with you is senseless because you dismiss evidence, reason, facts, logic and anything else that doesn’t fit into your little GOP playbook view of the world. You mix arguments the way a bad bartender mixes drinks and you refuse to answer simple questions asked plainly with direct, on topic answers. You have a steel trap mind sir, sadly it is closed. It’s people with views like yours, with logic like yours that caused me to leave the GOP in the first place.
By tos on Feb 8, 2007 | Reply
So nobody agrees with “Defense of Marriage Act”?
By Dr. Forbush on Feb 8, 2007 | Reply
tos,
If you mean agrees that the “Defense of Marriage Act” is discrimination, then yes I agree with that. When you have mob rule the mob can discriminate against the minority, just like they did with slavery and this crazy law…
By tos on Feb 8, 2007 | Reply
Wow Doc I can’t believe you are saying Bill Clinton discrimintated against a minority. You heard it hear first!
By Dr. Forbush on Feb 8, 2007 | Reply
tos,
When did I ever say that Bill Clinton was God?
By tos on Feb 8, 2007 | Reply
I guess you didn’t but I guess we can lump him into the Christian
LeftRight.By tos on Feb 8, 2007 | Reply
And to call it “Mob Rule”? That’s a little far reach don’t you think? It’s not gay bars are illegal. You know what mob rule is when women can’t use the same entrance in a Mosque that the men use or attend a service in an Orthodox temple unless 10 men are present or go up to an alter during child bearing years. Talk about religion discriminating.
By steve on Feb 8, 2007 | Reply
I think we should prevent women from speaking…
By Tom Baker on Feb 8, 2007 | Reply
Does anyone force those women into their faith? Do they need to attend those silly services? Do they have a choice? Of course they do. Do gay people have a choice to get married legally in this country in most of the 50 states? No they do not. Your argument has no merit.
By steve on Feb 8, 2007 | Reply
Tom:
Ever heard of the Taliban?
Your argument has no merit.
By tos on Feb 8, 2007 | Reply
Lol Steve!
And Tom you can pull it apart all you want but if you want to change laws then people should be able to marry their brothers and sisters.