Washington Defense of Marriage – procreation required
This post was published 2 years 9 months 2 days ago and its content may not be valid anymore.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.
Im sure its safe to assume that there is some sort of religious or hate type emotion fueling this.
Usually I don’t like commenting on things like this but I really like the way the WA-DOMA is going about making social conservatives trip over their own words here.
myke- I agree, it’s very clever. I have to agree with their logic, if they defend marriage sayign its sole purpous is for procreation, then it must be said that marriages MUST procreate
If a guy can’t figure out what his pecker is for, or where to put it; and a gal doesn’t know that another gal with a plastic pecker just isn’t a real one attached to a guy – well that’s confusion.
Religious or not, confusion of sex doesn’t mean that you automatically have rights that others that are not confused on sex have.
Doesn’t mean that you have no rights either, it just means that you shouldn’t expect the majority of the people on this planet who are not confused on sex to treat your confused opinions as sanity.
Dan I’m sorry but I think the only one thats confused is you…
…. what if I don’t want to have kids…
and Dan… who are you to tell anyone they can’t put their pecker or any other body part anywhere they want to… so long as it doesn’t affect you in the least I think they have every right to their opinion and stance not to mention what they do in their own bed rooms.
basically keep your government and gods of my penis… and my girlfriends woohoo-dilly … just to make that clear ;)
So paraplegics that have lost sexual function cant marry?
I think some are confused about what the WA-DOMA is actually saying…
They are using the conservatives words against them stating that if they believe marriage exist only for the purpose of procreation then anyone, regardless of sexual preference, should not be allowed to marry. Including couples that either physically can’t have kids, or just simply choose not to.
This isn’t something they actually believe should take place. But rather they hope the Supreme Court will deem these initiatives unconstitutional and devalue conservatives argument.
what are we? elementary kids, stooped to playing the old game of getting back at eachother? if they are trying to prove a point they arent.. they just look like a bunch of immature fools, marriage doent exist only for procreation… that was taken out of contex, the real reason is that marriage is for a man and a woman only; that is exactly how God created it.. so if you say “well i dont believe in god” well then I say, he believes in you.
LET THE FLAMING BEGIN
So, would this act also mean that post-menopausal women would be forced to devorce, as well as any who are simply unable to bear children? It’s funny, in a sorry, sad sort of way, how far conservatives will go to make sure that their opinions are preserved in law. I mean, the same people who are against gay marriage now were against interracial marriage fifty years ago (well, some still are) and marriages on equal footing another fifty years before that. How righteous were those causes? How righteous will this one seem in another fifty years?
Of course, if you look at marriage historically, the woman was the man’s chattel and thus was essentially considered as property, so trying to use a historical argument is flawed. Most people’s conception of marriage stems back to the 1950’s ideal nuclear family where the father worked, and the mother stayed at home and cared for the kids. After all, that’s what popular culture has taught them about families.
Myke:
No, I’m not confused at all – I know exactly where I like my pecker.
Chad:
Speaking of confused… I never said where someone can put his pecker at all. re-read my post and don’t assume.
Alan:
If you want to look at history, look at all of it. You obviously don’t know where the word “manager” comes from. Look at the etymology…
@Dan
You basically said that since their sexual preference isn’t equal to the mass majority they receieve different rights and should be considered “insane”…
Dan,
We all did re-read your post. When is an individual confused? When they lack all of the facts, unabel to comprehend all of the facts, or are too simple to understand all of the facts. When we talk about Sexual Orientation, it has nothing to do with any of these situations. When we talk about bigotry… well that’s where confusion does begins to play.
Ok, so ’splain me please:
Is Bob bigotted if he considers that Jack is so confused on cars that he puts water in the gas tank?
Or maybe Joe is bigotted because he sees Mary put gas in the engine crankcase?
If one doesn’t know what to do with something – anything – then he/she is confused on the subject. And no one who sees and names this confusion can be called bigotted (except by bigotted people of course…)
I’m infertile, does this mean I wouldn’t be able to get married?
Oh, and in the religous sense of marriage, Isn’t marriage about bring together two souls that vwill spend eternal life , both in this life and any possible afterlife. Not about gettin it on with each other and popping out ‘Mini-Me’s
I`m sorry you`re confused Dan. I really am.
Dan why is it so hard for you to believe that some are just born different from you. The “norm” I suppose you could say. It happens everyday.
I don’t get what procreation has to do with marriage anyway. If a gay couple want to get married what the hell let them. What do I care. If I want to get married but don’t want kids, what the hell does that matter. The damn government needs to sit this on out. They shouldn’t have any say in who I get married to.
@Dan
Relating sexual orientation to automobile refueling. Yay.
But anyway, maybe if they were mechanics and saw that happen, they can be called bigoted. Why? Because they would believe what they knew was superior to what that other person thought.
Yes indeedy.
As for not knowing what to do with one’s body parts, if a man can put his pector in a woman’s behind, or either one decided to “eat out”, that would classify as confusion in your definition, wouldn’t it? I mean, holy cow they’re in the wrong spot. Call the asylum! Somebody doesn’t know how to use their body parts properly!
Never mind being with the wrong sex, not doing it right is not doing it right, correct?
Seriously now…
We didn’t come with instruction manuals, so who are you to say that not being with the opposite sex is doing it wrong?
How can something be different when other animals do the exact same thing???
I think it is a delightfully clever initative designed to take out one aspect of the argument against same-sex marriage, namely the “marriage is only for procreation” argument.
There are still other arguments that are NOT addressed by this initiative – whether same sex couples should enjoy the benefits of civil union (I think that of course they should) – whether God designed marriage (I believe God did, although probably not in the same way most people who claim to know what God wants do. I think for sure God – however you understand God – prefers love to hate, union to isolation, tolerance to judgement, togetherness to separation ) – and if so, whether God had one man and one woman in mind (I believe that people, in the days in which the Bible was written, believed that, as they also believed that it was a bad idea to touch the skin of a pig and to plant different crops side by side) and perhaps a whole slew of other arguments.
In order to discuss this soberly (which to me means leaving out references to anybody’s pecker for crying out loud, and talking about the subject and not attacking people for their confusion or lack thereof, etc.) then it needs to be broken into smaller chunks. Like the saying goes, you can eat an elephant if you do it a spoonful at a time. This initiative offeres the “marriage as procreation” spoonful for our nourishment and enjoyment. Well done!
@Lisa
BECAUSE ANIMALS ARE INSSAAAANNNNNEEEEEE :D
Alrighty then! The whole “gay-straight- debacle” is unfortunately not an open and shut case, because many people, with varying ammounts of power have different opinions, which they too are entitled to, having been raised in one way or another. Whether there is anything wrong with same-sex partners is not for me to say. I do agree that it can be a very confusing matter, especially to those who don’t have all the facts.
I do not pretend to have all the facts, but I do know that be you gay or straight, engaging in unsafe-sex is just that – unsafe, and as far as I can understand, is one of the leading causes of HIV; that and of course anal relaxants or “poppers”, and the sharing of intravenus or simply unclean drugs (and a lot of drugs aren’t as clean as you’d think for those of you who common the Amsterdam-lifestyle.
Oh and for Lisa, we’re supposed to be the most intelligent species on Earth; so just because my dog gets his kicks from mounting company and rattling them silly before their tea’s cooled, doesn’t mean I’m going to follow his example. Again, not saying that people shouldn’t be able to do what they like, I just thought it was a rediculous argument.
True: a modern-day marriage is not what it was hundreds of years ago. It is a tradition, and in many cultures a symbol or gesture between two people who intend on spending the rest of their lives together. In other words it is a declaration to their friends, family, community, the world, and each other that their relationship is serious, and won’t be seeking out any new relationships. So personally, i don’t understand what people are getting so bent out of shape for.
And one more question: How does adoption figure into all of this?
Hmm, obviously if gay couples adopt, their kids will be gay. After all, kids raised in straight households are all going to be straight, right?
The real truth is that the argument is not on relegion, marriage, or what’s best for kids. It’s not about procreation, HIV, or any of those things. It’s simply a war to keep the status quo, and people will fabricate whatever arguments they can to try to stay entrenched.
@Tensenki:
That’s ok, go ahead and be sorry – s’ok by me.
@Myke:
Why is it so easy for you to assume I believe ANYTHING when I have not stated any beliefs?
@LISA:
Who are you to say I said something I didn’t? Learn to read – my post says nothing about anything “being wrong”.
@Dan
oh, I read it alright. Writing tends to imply things when written in certain contexts though.
Obviously I wasn’t the only one to think so.
So, possibly you should reread your writing before you post it if that is not what you intended.
But anyway, back to the proposal itself.
Ingenious idea. It takes guts to take what high officials say and throw it back in their faces.
@Lisa
If you, or anyone else, chooses to assume something from what someone has written, that is your choice, and I welcome you to it. However, doen’t be then taken aback if what you assume is not what was written.
By the way, I agree with your opinion on it taking guts to confront officials with their own words.
Dan-
Water in the gas tank? Maybe Bob doesn’t mean to be a bigot in your example. But Bob is actually the confused one- because he has no clue that Jack is actually working with a FISH tank, not an automobile. Bob never took the time or energy to learn anything about fish tanks. So instead, he just thinks he knows everything and refuses to learn anything that doesn’t fit into his narrow view of tanks.
To give you a translation that hopefully you’ll understand:
If you think my plumbing will only work with a man, you’re wrong. It works great with a woman, and with a man it makes me want to throw the heck up. What man should be with me? What man would you wish that on? If you think gay marriage or gay sex is so horrible- then don’t have a gay marriage or gay sex. And if someone else does have these things in their lives and are fulfilled by them and live happily, with harmony, and with full physical, medical, and financial access to one another just like any other family– and have the ability to take care of one another– who are you to deny that?
@Tanya
I’ve seen confusions before Tany, but yours is really bad! “Lets take your example of a cat and pretend it’s a monkey and then imagine that Dan said some things he didn’t and base my arguement on that!”
Good lord girl – figure out where you are and what you’re looking at!
@Dan
Okay, we get it, You don’t like gay marriage, and obviously you’re not gay, but I just have 1 question.
1)What does it matter to you if 2 people you’ve never met get married. Does it somehow affect you personally?
Okay, so let me get this… er… straight… Bob and Joe want it to be illegal for Jack and Mary to register their cars because they don’t fuel their cars the way it says you should in their User’s Manual. So they are saying that the purpose of registering a car is to drive a car and that Jack and Mary cannot drive their cars because of the way they fuel them and therefore should not be able to register them. Jack and Mary want to register their cars and continue to fuel them in the way that best gives them pleasure knowing full well that it will not lead to driving. If they want to go somewhere they can always take a cab. (Of course, they might influence how the cab driver fuels the cab…)
In response, Jack and Mary are proposing that Bob should have his registration revoked if he pours gas into a plastic bag while pretending to fill the tank, and the same goes for Joe when he pulls the nozzle out and sprays it all over the back of his car. Naturally, Bob and Joe would not go for this, so Jack and Mary would be free to register their cars and fuel them as they see fit… at least until Bob and Joe meet them in a dark alley just outside the alternative gas station with baseball bats.
So, “is Bob or Joe bigoted?” I would have to say yes, as they have an irrational desire to interfere in the lives of Jack and Mary over matters that clearly do not affect them. They have every right to wonder why Jack and Mary do what they do and even think that they are strange, but when they act against them because of what they do not understand, it is an act of hatred and ignorance.
Bob and Joe can quote their User’s Manual until they are blue in the face. Jack and Mary’s cars are different models (possibly even fish tanks, but that level of analogy mixed with paraphrase may be so drastic that it could confuse some) and may not have even come with User’s Manuals and, furthermore, they are not legally bound to follow Bob and Joe’s User’s Manual. And while the authors of this User’s Manual may have known that you need to put gas in the tank to drive the car and many other tidbits of automotive wisdom, it seems unlikely they knew much about the Engineer or the intended use of a car.
Do I think Jack and Mary are doing the right thing? Do I think they are especially clever? Whatever. Perhaps, the determination to grow and prosper has become so rare that it seems like a novelty. If they didn’t do something would they even exist?
Hate? Its logic. It is time emotion was removed from this discussion of law. I believe marriage exists in 3 states. It is personal, social and legal. The personal and social are emotional by nature. They are based on love, commitments, traditions, religion, etc. The legal side is purely about rights and responsiblities. It is a contract between a two equal partners. That is all. The happiness, warmth and support that should be part of any loving marriage is impossible to legislate. So we need to leave that out of the equation.
If the courts are going to continue to deny the legal right to same sex marriage with procreation as one of the reasons it stands to reason to deny opposite sex marriages on the same basis. The woman I love has said she doesn’t want to have children. My gay friends obviously can not have children together. When I propose to my girlfriend I have made the choice to not have children with the person I want to spend the rest of my life with. When my gay friend proposes to his boyfriend, he has made the choice to not have children with the person he wants to spend the rest of my life with. The courts have decided that his decision is grounds for blocking a legal marriage, but mine is not. Why?
Back on the subject of the emotional side of marriage, why do we need the government to put its stamp of approval on our love? Do we need to get a city permit to date? I have friends who I consider my family. Do I need get something from the state capitol to invite them over for Thanksgiving dinner? My former step-dad didn’t properly file his and mother’s divorce papers so they were never legally divorced. Technically that mean she her current “husband” aren’t legally married. While this does complicate things legally, does it make them love each other any less? Does it cheapen their commitment at all? If they were religious there might be some implications but all those concerns exist outside of the legal realm. And that is where they belong.