Washington Defense of Marriage - procreation required
Defense of Marriage Alliance announced an interesting proposed initiative to make procreation a requirement.
The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance (WA-DOMA)
announced on Thursday that their proposed initiative to make
procreation a requirement for legal marriage has been accepted by the
Secretary of State and assigned the serial number 957. The initiative
has been in the planning stages since the Washington Supreme Court
ruled last July that the state’s Defense of Marriage Act was
constitutional.“For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage
exists solely for the purpose of procreation,” said WA-DOMA organizer
Gregory Gadow in a printed statement. “The Washington Supreme Court
echoed that claim in their lead ruling on Andersen v. King County. The
time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own
medicine. If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage
because they can not have children together, it follows that all
couples who can not or will not have children together should equally
be barred from marriage. And this is what the Defense of Marriage
Initiative will do.”
Who wants to be the first time chime in with their thoughts
concerning the proposal? The initiative is the first of three including
one that would prohibit divorce when married couples have children and
to make having children the same as marriage.
Found on Uneasysilence
Labels:
World News
6 comments:
Hoi Mignon!
If you do not remember me: I'm the guy you met yesterday in Zernikeplein 11. I found a place for staying on a witch's farm 6 km from Zernike. Were you able to find the Google data centre? I'm standing right next to it with my car at this very moment.
But back to the topic: I think that the only solution for all the problems we have at the moment in this field is to fully abolish marriage. Many new ways of living your life have been established during the last years: Homosexual relationships, Polyamory, communes, relationship networks, line marriage... As long as those do not have a basic right that the normal one-man-one-woman relationships have, the people will be unsatisfied. But to allow all those and any further new idea to marry? Hardly. It is a lot more sensible to abolish the old concept of marriage altogether.
People who see marriage as a religios sacrament will still be able to marry befor the curch, of course, but the will not get any rights that unmarried people have not before the state.
What do you think of this idea now?
Tot ziens,
Simon
You make a good point Simon, but in this conceptual world of yours how would you handle disputes about ownership of residence, money, assets, etc. when a couple splits up?
Hoi!
Actually, the same as it is handled today on most marriages. You normally make a contract that clearly states what assets belong to whom and what happens with the new acquisitions during the time of the partnership. If you don't, there is a default fallback, that might have to be changed of course when there is no legal marriage any more.
Btw, what are you doing this week? Care to have a coffee somewhere?
Tot ziens,
Simon
Thank you, that's sweet but I'm afraid I live way too far away. I live in Katwijk and I won't be in Groningen for a while, but as soon as I know when I'm gonna be there again I'll let you know and we can have coffee in the student lounge. Sorry I can't accept your offer, at least not as soon as this week, but I'm swamped with physics homework and to be honest I hardly understand any of it. Yeah, I like your idea to abolish legal marriage all together. It's not like there's anything sacred about it today anyway. Nobody weds as a virgin, women and men find out after 5 years of "marital bliss" that their partner is either cheating on them or gay, and nobody really respects the sanctity that once was marriage. Still, I think it's important to have some kind of agreement between two people who are going out like if they have kids, just something you know so that there's some sort of thing that makes them both realize they have a commitment to each other and their kids and they can't just walk out on that.
OK, I'm looking forward to meeting you again.
And I agree that it is important that people, be it two, three, one or any other number, that want to have kids or a business or whatever other responsible thing talk about it before and find out what is ok for everyone involved. But outsourcing this to a state which says, well, ok, there is a form for you where we give you certain benefits, but you have to be exactly two people of different sexes, and we have a strict codex about what is ok in your relationship and what isn't (in some US states, it a a first grade sexual offence to "commit adultery"!), I think that's bullshit.
I'm a bit old fashioned there, it might not be too bad a thing to outlaw adultery in concept ... but yeah infringes human rights. Ugh, the world is pretty screwed anyway, kind of beyond repair.
Post a Comment