Gay Rights Activists Introduce Initiative that Would Require Children in Marriages

[AlexMack]

http://www.kndo.com/Global/story.asp...av=menu484_2_8

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.

I find this sneaky and satirical. I love it! Mainly because 'marriages are for procreating couples only' is a ridiculous anti-gay marriage argument.

[shinerbock]

Crazy gay folks. Thankfully, I don't think they'll be getting married in my state anytime soon.

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by centaur532

http://www.kndo.com/Global/story.asp...av=menu484_2_8



I find this sneaky and satirical. I love it! Mainly because 'marriages are for procreating couples only' is a ridiculous anti-gay marriage argument.

Ditto.

[PeppyGPhiB]

I can't believe people actually think the gay community really thinks this should be a law. It was obviously introduced in order to make a point, which it does pretty effectively I think. That is, once people get passed the emotional response to this bill. It of course won't pass, they know it won't pass, and the two sides of the argument re: the supreme court ruling will get a lot of press.

Unfortunately too many people will just label the sponsors of this bill as nuts and just leave it at that.

[UGAalum94]

Was the language about heterosexual procreation actually in legislation to oppose gay marriage, instead of just the arguments about gay marriage?

On some level the procreation requirement is funny and calls attention to the issue, but I also wonder if the argument kind of backfires because I think the vast majority of heterosexual marriages do produce children.

Sure some people just form couples, but for a lot of people it's the first step towards starting a family.

Anyone know the percentage?

What if heteros were willing to accept those terms; no marriage is valid without offspring; no marriage benefits to couples without children? I think many Bible thumpers would be cool with that because they do have kids.


ETA: I see now that it was the language of the supreme court decision.