Requiring marriges to have kids?


A new tactic in the marriage debate
Obviously this one is bearding.

But they have a point.

Initiative 957 was filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance. That group was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage.

Under the initiative, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children in order to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriage would be subject to annulment.

All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized" and people in those marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.

It makes just about as much sense to require a marriage to produce children as it does to define a marriage only between a man and a woman.

I have to go with my friend (and frequent commenter) Juliaki on cases like this. Marriage is a religious ceremony and should be defined only by the faith group performing the marriage. Government should only define civil unions. Marriage is a type of civil union.

It's not an attack on the "sacred rite of marriage."

It's a matter of getting the government out of marriage where it never should have been in the first place.

Government's ONLY role should be making sure that all those getting married are consenting adults.

Frankly, I am less interested in the sex and number of partners as I am in making sure that everyone keeps their promises and oaths. That should be the limit of government involvement as well.

— NeoWayland

Posted: Wed - February 7, 2007 at 09:52 AM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved