Requiring Children...

[SuzySunshine]

Here's a new one...

Gay Rights Activists Introduce Initiative that Would Require Children in Marriages

Feb 5, 2007 04:09 PM CST

KENNEWICK, Wash.- A new initiative is turning heads around the state as the gay-marriage debate heats up again.

Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed has accepted Iinitiative 957, a response by gay rights activists to a State Supreme Court ruling last summer.

The Washington Supreme Court ruled that the state could prevent gay and lesbian couples from marrying because the state has a legitimate interest in preserving marriage for procreation.

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance then filed the initiative.

I-957 has five clauses that would have to be met for a legal marriage.

It would allow only couples capable of having kids to marry, and that they file "proof of procreation" within three years of the marriage. If not, the marriage would be annulled.

Many people think the law is over the top.

Leaders at a Kennewick church with gay and lesbian members feel the same.

"There are many marriages that are not about having children. There are many couples who marry later in life, they marry for companionship, they marry because they want to create a family," said the Reverend Janet Pierce.

"They don't necessarily marry to have children," Pierce said.

I-957 would also force couples who married out of state to show the same proof of procreation or their marriage wouldn't be recognized, and it would become a criminal act for anyone in an unrecognized marriage to get marriage benefits.

To make it on the November ballot they need 224,800 signatures by July 6.

[medpedspouse]

Something tells me someone did not think this one out too well. It is wrong on sooo many levels.

[Auspicious]

Love it! That's one way to make a point.

Agree with Julie.

Would it be a good law? No. It's just rebutting the idea that marriage needs to be preserved for procreation - which is absurd.

I'd sign the petition.

[Vanquisher]

What about a woman who did not have a uterus, and so could not provide proof that she could procreate? What about an elderly couple?

That is BS!!

I don't understand why anyone has such issues with two dudes wanting to get hitched. Seriously.

Some people would rather go out of their way to hurt people and prospose assinine legislation than butt out of other people's lives, loves, and bedrooms.

:soapbox:

[pstone]

I don't see why it is hard to understand that many people could care less who you want to sleep with, live with, etc....

Questions:

1. Should tax payers give benefits to two men / two women?
2. Is there anything special about men/woman relationships that warrents the benefits paid for by our taxes?

[Sheherezade]

My guess is this is what spawned the court decision

2. Is there anything special about men/woman relationships that warrents the benefits paid for by our taxes?

I can see the argument that procreation brings about more tax payers for the society. I don't agree with total bans on gay unions nor do I agree with this proposition about requiring procreation. Still, it's easy to see how they got this proposal if the court used procreation as the argument for upholding the ban. I'd imagine that it would result in a lack of marriage between older people - not infertile couples. I'd guess that if there was a reasonable chance of procreation that a marriage would be allowed. Proof after three years? Nutso.

This is me debating the issue with myself. It's an interesting intellectual exercise. I think we all know this has nothing to do with procreation - really - but if that's the excuse issued by the court for why gay marrages are "wrong" then they have to live with it. I'm not sure they got the reasoning right.

If you are uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage, it is interesting to think about why that is. I am, honestly. I have nothing against someone that is homosexual. I have close relatives that are and good friends as well. I'm all for civil unions. But....I get a little leery on the marriage issue -- and I don't have any idea why. I can't make a clear argument - and hence I've never voted for a ban. I'll have to think about it some more.

[Gwendolyn]

Agree with Julie.

Would it be a good law? No. It's just rebutting the idea that marriage needs to be preserved for procreation - which is absurd.

I'd sign the petition.

Civil Rights means marriage rights. I find this whole bigoted movement to keep people from marrying ridiculous.

[DCJenn]

As I've always maintained, marriage in the eyes of the law is to provide a legal means to access benefits and other resources such as social security.

and since the general populice isn't exactly setting a gleaming example of marriage between men and women, I think it's kind of a ridiculous argument to say that it's somehow more meaningful between a man and a women.

Now, if churches have a problem with homosexual peopel marryng under their auspices, that's cool with me- I don't belong to organized religion for that and many other reasons. Exclusionary practices are offensive to me.

as for the bill itself, I think it's a very creative way to get people talking about the issue, if only for a moment. There are obviously much more pressing topics in the news and sometime you have to be a little outrageous to get your point across.

Jenn

As I've always maintained, marriage in the eyes of the law is to provide a legal means to access benefits and other resources such as social security.

and since the general populice isn't exactly setting a gleaming example of marriage between men and women, I think it's kind of a ridiculous argument to say that it's somehow more meaningful between a man and a women.

Now, if churches have a problem with homosexual peopel marryng under their auspices, that's cool with me- I don't belong to organized religion for that and many other reasons. Exclusionary practices are offensive to me.

as for the bill itself, I think it's a very creative way to get people talking about the issue, if only for a moment. There are obviously much more pressing topics in the news and sometime you have to be a little outrageous to get your point across.

Jenn

Jenn said it better than I did. She articulated EXACTLY how I feel about the subject.

[Vanquisher]

Wow, I totally read the article wrong. Anyhoo... I think homosexuals should have the right to legally marry if they want to and should be afforded all the rights and priveleges therein. That's what I get for glossing over things. Bad me.

[Rapunzel]

Well, as I've said in the past...

Yup, the state of marriage in our society is abysmal. We have high divorce rates, high rates of infidelity, and an overall underappreciation for families in our culture. However, I don't believe that that in any way justifies putting the final nails in the coffin of marriage - by completely changing its definition and ideals.

And, yes, the point the people behind such a bill are attempting to make is a sarcastic one. They are pointedly ignoring the fact that children do thrive best in a home environment with both a mother and a father present - marriage being a means to such an end. Rather than encouraging the destruction of what is best for the raising of our future society - ie children via single parenthood and other various forms of family life that rob children of both a male and female parental influence - we should be focusing on how to correct the present situation (ie to encourage what is best for a child - both the presence of the mother and the father in their development).

[pstone]

Yeah, to me marriage is and has been man and woman.
If you want to be commited to your same sex lover great, I don't care one bit. If you want to make some 'new name' for that commitment great, all the power to you.

Do I think the government should pay social security to your same sex spouse? no.

can I defend that perfectly? no

does it just seem right to me? yes

do kids need mom and dad? yes

Do I see a benefit to man / woman relationships for society? yes.



I know it is all hard to argue, hard to draw a line, I am all for next of kin, health care decisions, all that stuff for couples that want to commit, but it just rubs me wrong that marriage can't be what it always has been.

[pstone]

I don't ascribe to the notion that race and sexual orientation are equal, but nice aggressive comment.

[Auspicious]

Would I be willing to pay for my BIL/parnter's benefits? No.

Would I be willing to pay the benefits for their lesbian friends with two children? Yes.

I'm willing to pay benefits to both. Marriage/lifetime partnerships require risk and sacrifice even before children are present. Say your BIL gets a great job across country and his partner takes a serious career hit to go with him--isn't he entitled to Soc.Sec. benefits like a spouse would be? I'd pay for it. Families of two are still families and should still have legal rights.

I'd be willing to pay further benefits for their lesbian friends with children, as they are taking on even further risk and sacrifice, yes.

Govt. should be promoting family stability with benefits.