{"id":9844,"date":"2007-02-06T11:13:07","date_gmt":"2007-02-06T16:13:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com\/archives\/9844.html"},"modified":"2007-02-06T11:13:07","modified_gmt":"2007-02-06T16:13:07","slug":"requiring-married-couples-to-have-children","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/requiring-married-couples-to-have-children\/","title":{"rendered":"Requiring married couples to have children?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Last summer, the Washington state Supreme Court upheld a ban on same-sex marriage in a ruling that emphasized procreation as a rationale. The 5-4 opinion, written by Justice Barbara Madsen, concluded that &#8220;limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the state&#8217;s interests in procreation and encouraging families with a mother and father and children biologically related to both.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>With this in mind, critics of the ruling have unveiled a <a href=\"http:\/\/seattlepi.nwsource.com\/local\/6420AP_WA_Initiative_Forced_Procreation.html\">provocative new idea<\/a>. (via Ed Stephan)<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>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 kids within three years or else have their marriages annulled. [&#8230;]<\/p>\n<p>Under I-957, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriages would be subject to annulment.<\/p>\n<p>All other marriages would be defined as &#8220;unrecognized&#8221; and people in them would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Now, it&#8217;s important to remember that this is little more than a stunt. The people behind the initiative refer to their own proposal as &#8220;political street theater&#8221; and &#8220;very&#8230;absurd,&#8221; and admit they have no intention of having it become law. But, proponents argue, &#8220;[T]here is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions&#8221; underlying the state Supreme Court&#8217;s ruling.<\/p>\n<p>In general, I disapprove of using the political process to play games or prove a point, but proponents of Initiative 957 have a point, don&#8217;t they?<br \/>\n<!--more--><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Gadow said that if the group&#8217;s initiatives were passed, the Supreme Court would be forced to strike them down as unconstitutional, which he believes would weaken the original ruling upholding the Defense of Marriage Act. [&#8230;]<\/p>\n<p>Gadow said the [court&#8217;s] argument is unfair when you&#8217;re dealing with same-sex couples who are unable to have children together.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;What we are trying to do is display the discrimination that is at the heart of last year&#8217;s ruling,&#8221; he said.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>In case there was any doubt, this measure isn&#8217;t going anywhere fast. Lawmakers have denounced it, activist groups hate it, and the in-state media is already mocking it. Supporters of I-957 must gather at least 224,800 valid signatures by July 6 to put it on the November ballot. That seems pretty unlikely.<\/p>\n<p>Still, it&#8217;s some clever outside-the-box thinking.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Last summer, the Washington state Supreme Court upheld a ban on same-sex marriage in a ruling that emphasized procreation as a rationale. The 5-4 opinion, written by Justice Barbara Madsen, concluded that &#8220;limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the state&#8217;s interests in procreation and encouraging families with a mother and father and children biologically related [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[617],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9844","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9844","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9844"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9844\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9844"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9844"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9844"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}