Marriage and childbirth

Could become law in Washington state

Ballot Title
Statement of Subject: Initiative Measure No. 957 concerns eligibility for marriage.

Concise Description: This measure would limit marriage to those couples who are biologically capable of having children together, and would invalidate the marriages of couples who fail to procreate children within three years after marrying.

Ballot Measure Summary
This measure would restrict marriage to a male and a female who are capable of having children together. Couples would be required to declare their ability to procreate children together in order to obtain marriage licenses. If a couple failed to procreate children within three years of marriage, their marriage would be subject to annulment. All other marriages would be defined as “unrecognized.” Persons in unrecognized marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.

I figure homosexual marriages being legal there would be completely out of the question then. 😕

Originally posted by lausey
I figure homosexual marriages being legal there would be completely out of the question then. 😕

Unless born through the digestive tract counts as a child. I'm pretty sure I once worked for someone that description applies to.

Originally posted by Merk
Unless born through the digestive tract counts as a child. I'm pretty sure I once worked for someone that description applies to.

Interestingly, Mr. Gregory Paul Gadow (the person who sponsors that ballot) was also born this way.

What a pathetic sounding law.

Originally posted by shavixmir
What a pathetic sounding law.

Doesn't just sound it, it is one of the most ridiculous things I have read in a long time!

I thought it was a joke at first, but found it on the Washington Secretary of State election website. Full text is here:

http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/i957.pdf

Originally posted by lausey
Doesn't just sound it, it is one of the most ridiculous things I have read in a long time!

I thought it was a joke at first, but found it on the Washington Secretary of State election website. Full text is here:

http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/i957.pdf

As initiatives in Washington State go, this one is pretty good.

The TV news reported it two days ago as the latest response from gay activists to the spate of anti-gay initiatives that have been on the ballot. Sort of an effort to strike back with some irony.

I have read some silly legislation in my life, but this is near the top in absurdity. Washington state? This sounds like something from a third world country where women are still viewed one step lower on the social status ladder than cows.

Whoever submitted this bill should be removed from office for stupidity.

Originally posted by wib
I have read some silly legislation in my life, but this is near the top in absurdity. Washington state? This sounds like something from a third world country where women are still viewed one step lower on the social status ladder than cows.

Whoever submitted this bill should be removed from office for stupidity.

You clearly do not understand how initiatives work.


You also miss the point, which had been spelled out in the previous post.


Think about it. Why do married people receive any special benefits (tax breaks, unearned insurance, access to another's earnings, etc.). Because society benefits from the family unit when it contains children. Folks that wish to cohabitate together without children should not be harrassed, nor should they be given special status.

We have efforts to protect families on the ballot nearly every election, and many such proposals in the legislature, too. These protection measures, in truth, are efforts to build into the law discrimination against gay and lesbian couples, and sometimes against heterosexual couples that opt not to marry. This initiative aims to limit the state's recognition of marriage unions to those that actually benefit the commons.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
You clearly do not understand how initiatives work.


You also miss the point, which had been spelled out in the previous post.


Think about it. Why do married people receive any special benefits (tax breaks, unearned insurance, access to another's earnings, etc.). Because society benefits from the family unit when it contains children. Folks t ...[text shortened]... o limit the state's recognition of marriage unions to those that actually benefit the commons.

You're right. I REALLY am missing this point.

You're saying this measure is a good thing??? That telling married couples if they don't have children in 3 years they're marriages will be annulled is a good thing?

I find it to be the height of arrogance for anyone to believe they know what's best for any couple outside of that relationship. If people want to marry and NOT have kids then let them. If they want to marry and not use contraception, have kinky sex, have a threesome, or never have sex again, then by all means let them.

The state's concerns be d@mned.

Originally posted by wib


The state's concerns be d@mned.

Why should the state have any concern for marriage?

Originally posted by wib
You're right. I REALLY am missing this point.

You're saying this measure is a good thing??? That telling married couples if they don't have children in 3 years they're marriages will be annulled is a good thing?

I find it to be the height of arrogance for anyone to believe they know what's best for any couple outside of that relationship. If people ...[text shortened]... , or never have sex again, then by all means let them.

The state's concerns be d@mned.

This is not a bill put forward by any member of the state legislature. In Washington state anyone who collects enough signatures can put an initiative on the ballot. As stated above, there have recently been "the spate of anti-gay initiatives that have been on the ballot", and this is apparently a response by the gay community, to point out the fact that "because they don't have kids" is an illegitimate distinction to use as the basis for treating people differently under the law.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Why should the state have any concern for marriage?

you're right .... if they were thinking straight, they would pass laws that discourage marriage, thus making the state more necessary in so many ways ...

we'll all be pod (or iPod) people ...

Originally posted by richjohnson
This is not a bill put forward by any member of the state legislature. In Washington state anyone who collects enough signatures can put an initiative on the ballot.

The signature gathering has begun. Likely, we won't know until July whether they have enough to put it on the ballot. Then, assuming it passes (unlikely), it will likely be found to be unconstitutional (as the lions share of initiatives in Washington state prove to be).

BTW, lots of states have initiatives, including nearly all western states. In California, they are called "propositions".

Originally posted by zeeblebot
you're right .... if they were thinking straight, they would pass laws that discourage marriage, thus making the state more necessary in so many ways ...

we'll all be pod (or iPod) people ...

That's not what I'm saying.