In Washington State, Propogate or Face the Consequences

No children after three years married? Your license is revoked.

This initiative, which its sponsors admit is “being done in the spirit of political street theater,” is a response to the Washington State Supreme Court ruling last year which upheld the state’s Defense of Marriage Act. In the 5-4 ruling, the court found that lawmakers were justified in restricting marriage to unions between a man and a woman since the state has an interest in furthering procreation. (Emphasis mine.) They concede that it doesn’t have a snowball’s chance of getting the required signatures, let alone passing; but they do raise a couple of fascinating scenarios should it become law. One is that the DoMA would have to be modified and/or repealed; another is that opponents of same-sex marriage (specifically, religious fundamentalists) who have no children would be forced into an interesting logical corner.

(Sidenote: one of my brothers is married to a woman who must not conceive because of health reasons. I’ve never brought up to him that is marriage might not be valid under the WSSC’s interpretation of DoMA, mainly because I have an aversion to being punched in the nose.)

For myself, I will probably go against my usual practice (which is to avoid all signature gatherers like the plague) and sign it. Partly because I find the “marriage is for children” argument unpersuasive, but mainly because I think the election process needs an occasional injection of chaos.

Interesting. A couple years ago an friend from Texas was visiting and made some absurd statement along the lines of “If they can’t have children, they shouldn’t be allowed to marry” She was here because I had recently married. I asked her if she meant that since I was too old to bear children, that she disapproved of my marriage. Her response was, “We just can’t talk sensibly about this!” :smack: :dubious: :rolleyes:

But folks like your sister never stop to think that the only way to find out for absolutely sure if a woman is fertile is to* have* kids, presumably within the bonds of marriage of course!

So what if a woman proves unable to bear kids, either because her husband can’t give her any, or she has reproductive issues?

Well, she was right in that regard.

“Unreconcilable differences.”

Three years? That isn’t a very long time. I’ve known plenty of ordinary heterosexual married couples who waited at least 3 years before trying to concieve. My own birth falls after 3 years of marriage by only a couple of months.

Now admittedly, the idea of revoking the marriage license is mostly political street theater, and is intended to point out the absurdity of the marriage is for children argument, but 3 years is not a very long time to wait to see if a couple has children, even ignoring those who are too old or who have fertility issues (or other health related reasons to not want to concieve a child).

Well, if she is the one with “reproductive issues”–she should be allowed to stay on as senior wife. Her housekeeping skills will be useful while her hubby plants his seed in more nubile soil. Surely, the Godly Folk can find Biblical precedents.

As for the other cause of childlessness: How many Biblical Patriarchs were found lacking? Woudn’t any “problems” be the fault of the Daughters of Eve? (Or–of the man who’se spilling his seed where he shouldn’t?)

If your marriage gets revoked, you can always get married again when you are ready to start trying, or you actually get pregnant. That shouldn’t be a problem right? After all, marriage is all about procreation.

“Marriage is for children?” Dang, I shoulda used that argument on my folks, back when I was five, and Sherrie Norbert and I were sooooo in wuv with each other.

Well that’s all very unChinese. Does anyone have any insight as to how this became an interest of the state? Is immigration reform working so well that Washington is running out of apple-pickers?

Hey, you want to watch out with the making fun of old guys. Never know when a pack of bears is going to wander by…

When a pro gay marriage suit challenged Indiana’s very old marriage law, our Appeals Court stomped on the suit, using the same reason. My wife and I were mighty surprised. We’ve been married for 27 years, and we are childfree by choice. After all this time, it turns out we aren’t married at all!

That’s what happens when Church rules State.

Everyone who signs it should also be forced to give an extra $1000/year to the welfare system and to Social Security. SOMEONE is going to need to take care of all those kids!

Of course, there are a lot of gay couples out there raising kids, too, so the logic behind the three year limit and the gay marriage ban is about equally stupid. Which is, of course, the whole point of the three year limit.