Monday, February 19, 2007

No children? Then no marriage



Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced an initiative that would put a whole new twist on traditional unions between men and women: It would require heterosexual couples to have children within three years or else have their marriages annulled.

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



Read the rest of the story here.

I love that this initiative is happening in Washington. Why? One of my close friends from college and his partner live there. And they just got engaged. I'm so happy that he's found someone who he loves and who loves him back. It's not easy to find that, no matter your sexual orientation.

I hope this initiative spurs on the discussion that so many are afraid to have. What makes a marriage valid? Is it simply procreation to ensure the future of our planet? The idea is absurd. As someone who really doesn't care to have kids, I simply cannot stand behind the mentality that a ideal marriage is one with children - or even that perhaps the only purpose for being around is children. If that's the case, I guess my existence in the world is not necessary. So why did God bother?

Do you see how far this discussion into the ridiculous can go? And that's okay with me, because as least it's getting talked about rather than swept under the rug.

My only concern is that this may further alienate those on the fence about the issue. As unfortunate at this is, they need the support of those in hetersexual marriages in order to accomplish their goal.

2 comments:

Kansas Bob said...

Yikes! That is definitely a new spin on 'real' marriage for me :)

What about people who get married after child-bearing years?

The idea is an absurd one!

stephanie said...

That's pretty much the point, I think. I think they are counting on people realizing the absurdity of the initiative and when the question "why?" comes up, the asnwer will be - "well, children is not what makes a marraige valid." This opens doors for same-sex marriage defense.

We all know that a marriage isn't a "real" one just because procreation occurs. But that's what Washington's ruling last summer basically says. Those who defend same-sex marriage take issue with that, saying, "well, if that's the case, then every single marriage must result in children. Otherwise it's invalid."

It makes us all ask ourselves: why is same-sex marriage illegal? Just because that can't bear children together? No. Because not every hetero-sexual marriage will produce children. Some people are infertile, some people don't want kids, and like you said, some people get married after child-bearing years. It's not fair to restrict a marriage to procreation. And thus, the argument supporting same-sex marriage is strengthened.

Yes, the idea is absurd. It's starting the dialog. And you know how I love that.