Idea Would Require Couples to Have Kids
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. . . .
I'm not too worried that this will go through. The right isn't crazy enough to pass an 'absurd' law just to retain intellectual consistency with regard to their reasoning behind bans on gay marriage. Right?
It might present an interesting media blurb if a childfree couple got behind this. I had the idea of taking out a full page ad in the NYT saying "Stop My Marriage!" A consistent, narrowly tailored approach to retaining marriage for childrearing wouldn't even need the annulment or proof positions; it would simply involve a signed statement on marriage license applications, as those stating you're not married to anyone else, or brother and sister.
And no, my commentary is not really child-free related. I'm aware we come from all over the political spectrum, even if the community in general skews left. With all the attention given to Condi, Rush, et al, I figured I was entitled to a little digression . . .
Technorati Tag: childfree
2 comments:
They may as well add an addendum to the proposed rule that anyone over a certain age (say, 65) shouldn't be allowed to marry in the first place. That would help add to the ridiculousness.
Amanda
I've considered getting behind this one myself. Even if it does pass enough infertile and CF couples will complain until it's turned over. Especially religious couples because they won't like to be "living in sin".
Ashley
Post a Comment