Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance
Offline I find this odd. So lets say you have a group of people who want to allow same-sex marriage. This group deals with opponents who say marriage is only between a man and a woman because a marriage is only for having children. So what is a good way of dealing with said opponents? Give them what they claim to want: Try to pass a law saying that a marriage is only legal if you have proof of procreation within three years of marriage, or the marriage is automatically annulled. There are some other requirements to enforce this and it does not deal with adoption and stuff, but it is not meant to stand up to a court ruling; in fact, they hope to pass it so that it can be struck down by the courts.
It is kind of an odd way of getting your message across, but it may also serve to weaken the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling on Andersen v. King County if this is struck down by the courts. I figured I would post this because we sometimes get the "marriage is for a family" argument and this shows how absurd that one argument can be. As someone said on another forum, it uses "be careful what you ask for, you might just get it" to show how even the people who believe in "marriage is for a family" may balk at having opposite-sex marriages annulled for failure to have children. Sadly, there are a few indoctrinated people who will agree with this law, but I think that they represent the minority.
The website: http://www.wa-doma.org/
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. ..." -- Thomas Jefferson
- Login to post comments
Can't you just see all the caveats that would have to be written into a law like that?
Law: If the woman has not given birth and is not pregnant by the 3rd wedding anniversary, the marriage is automatically annulled.
What if the couple is trying to get pregnant and they don't know yet if she is?
What if the couple is in the process of in-vitro fertilization?
What if the woman wants babies, but is currently undergoing medical treatment that would force her to wait due to her health and the health of the possible fetus?
What if one partner is away at war?
What if one or both partners are a caregiver for an ailing parent?
What if
What if
What if
(Oh brother!)
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Yes, it would be a bit crazy. But the point is to say that if you are not biologically on the way to having a baby, you should not have the benefit of marriage since you were given three years to begin this process. I think the stance on a partner away at war or being a caregiver will still be to have the marriage annulled since the law is all about saying: no baby, no marriage. To make exceptions to this would be to admit that partnerships are useful outside of making and raising children. If partnerships are seen as useful outside of creating a family (such as care giving or a partner away at war), then it would be obvious (well, to some) that to not allow same sex marriages is unfair discrimination.
I really hope that a judge does not uphold this law if it passes. I think in all probability, it will be overturned as soon as it has a chance to be tested in court, and hopefully the ruling of Andersen v. King County will be weakened by this.
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. ..." -- Thomas Jefferson