Idea Would Require Couples to Have Kids
OLYMPIA, Wash. — Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced a ballot measure that would require heterosexual couples to have a child within three years or have their marriages annulled.
The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance acknowledged on its Web site that the initiative was “absurd” but hoped the idea prompts “discussion about the many misguided assumptions” underlying a state Supreme Court ruling that upheld a ban on same-sex marriage.
The 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.
The paperwork for the measure was submitted last month. Supporters must gather at least 224,800 signatures by July 6 to put it on the November ballot.
The group said the proposal was aimed at “social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation.”
Cheryl Haskins, executive director of Allies for Marriage and Children, said opponents of same-sex marriage want only to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
“Some of those unions produce children and some of them don't,” she said.
Ok, so even they admit the concept is idiotic, but they still want to go through the motions. That's just… <head goes boom>.
…the way I see it, that's the whole point – saying, “yes, it's ridiculous – but not much more ridiculous than saying same-sex marriage is evil because it doesn't produce any kids”.
More a way of trying to make people think than anything else.
If it's the best way of doing that is another question – but I don't think it's the worst way.
(http://livejournal.com/users/raspberrysalmon)
Gregory Gadow, of the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, said the group hopes to make a point by parodying a state Supreme Court ruling last year that denied gays the right to marry because, among other reasons, such unions don't further the purpose of procreation.
Gadow, a computer programmer who lives on Capitol Hill, said that premise “has never been subject to public examination.”
The justices, in a 5-4 ruling in July, upheld Washington's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which limits marriage to a union of one man and one woman.
Gadow said his alliance (…) is a loosely organized group of 15 or so friends. While they will work to get Initiative 957 on the ballot and passed in November, Gadow said he doesn't really want to see it enacted — and would expect the Supreme Court ultimately to strike it down as unconstitutional.
And that's the point, he said. By striking down I-957, he believes the court would be forced to confront its decision in the gay-marriage case.
“We want people to think about the purpose of marriage,” he said. “If it exists for the purpose of procreation, they must understand then that these are the consequences.”
Speaking for most here… I don't want to take anyone's rights away, just get the same ones.
(http://livejournal.com/users/eniran)
It's along the same lines as Johnathan Swift's 'A Modest Proposal'.
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
(http://livejournal.com/users/nothingtoyou)