Every once in a while, I read a news story that leaves my mouth hanging open. I’ve focused the last several days on romance, letters of love, love notes and even love letters. I was a bit loath to write about this topic, but I let it sit for a couple of days and I need to put some thoughts out here with regard to this news story that showed up in my news alerts.
Legal Recognition, Clauses and More
As you may be aware, the marriage debates have raged from one end of the country to the other. In most states that have voted on the issue – there has been a conservative sweep to keep the state of marriage reserved only for heterosexual couples. The Washington state Supreme Court ruled that the state maintains an interest in preventing the legal recognition of same-sex marriages. Their reasoning, marriage should be reserved for those who raise children.
As a direct reaction to his ruling, marriage advocates in the state have decided to take the court’s word literally. How are they doing this? They are advocating a new ballot initiative. This initiative would prevent any one from marrying who cannot have children, including heterosexual couples. Those who do marry must file a proof of procreation within three years of their marriage.
Proof of Procreation
The initiative called I-957 includes five separate clauses that would need to be met in order for a couple to maintain their legal marriage. For example, a couple who marries and cannot provide proof of procreation within the three year window – their marriage would be annulled.
Is this insane? Of course it is and the advocates of marriage on all sides agree. But many people marry and not with the goal of having children – including older couples who may be marrying for companionship and love. So a couple in their fifties who may or may not have had previous spouses would not be able to enter a legal marriage because they may not be able to procreate or even be interested in procreating.
The ballot initiative would also require couples married out of state to provide the same proof of procreation or they would not have their marriage recognized. This initiative would also make it a criminal act if a couple received marriage benefits while engaged in an unrecognized marriage.
So if even those who support the recognition of gay marriage think this initiative is nuts, what are these marriage advocates trying to prove? They are making a point – a rather obvious one when you look at it. If the argument against same-sex unions is that they cannot procreate on their own and must seek alternative methods such as artificial insemination or adoption – then shouldn’t this standard be applied consistently? There are many men and women out there who elect to adopt because they want to or choose to adopt because of an infertility issue and more.
Nonsensical Arguments
I get the point they are trying to make. We would no sooner tell a woman who cannot have children because of a medical problem that she cannot marry, not to mention the fact that we’re not really into the idea of eugenics breeding programs (what else can you call something like this?). The goal of this initiative is to point out that arguing against gay marriage based on their ability or inability to procreate is prejudicial and hypocritical.
I think this is the type of argument that could blow up in their faces. It is a nonsensical argument to say that only couples that can procreate naturally can marry. There are far too many unwanted children in the world, children who need homes and who need stability. To tell potential families that they cannot be created to provide homes for children – because they cannot make their own children – yes, it’s crazy. I get the point, but it’s hard to support this because I think it takes the argument in a direction no one wants it to go.
What do you think?
Related Articles:
Marriage in the News: Cut those Apron Strings!
Marriage in the News: Texas Law Creates a Feud
Marriage in the News: A Whole New Kind of Marriage Debate