I thought the gay marriage movement wasn’t supposed to be a threat to traditional marriage. But once again gay marriage movement supporters reveal their basic hostility to traditional marriage.
February 06, 2007
Defending marriage
Bob Myer
The story of the Washington state ballot initiative to cancel heterosexual marriages if they don't produce children within three years has achieved wide visibility this morning. The idea of course is to respond to arguments that homosexual marriages are different because they are barren.
The point which escapes the folks at the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, which doesn't appear to defend anything approaching the classic definition of marriage, is a very simple idea: potentiality.
Any marriage between a man and a woman has, fundamentally, biologically, the potential to produce a child. Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances which preclude this, or other times choice dismisses the potential. However, given a man and a woman and normal, unassisted biology, the potential to create human life is there. Period.
Any union between two human beings of the same sex has absolutely zero potential to create human life without outside assistance. Period.
Any attempt to reframe the debate on the definition of marriage is merely an attempt to circumvent these basic facts. Some things really are just that simple.
Posted at 03:22 PM
Americanthinker.com
Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids
12:59 PM PST on Tuesday, February 6, 2007
KING5.com Staff and Associated Press
OLYMPIA, Wash. - An initiative filed by proponents of same-sex marriage would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriage annulled.
Initiative 957 was filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance. That group was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage.
Under the initiative, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children in order to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriage would be subject to annulment.
All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized" and people in those marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.
Proof of procreation initiative
For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation ... The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine," said WA-DOMA organizer Gregory Gadow in a printed statement. “If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage."
Supporters must gather more than 224,000 valid signatures by July 6 to put the initiative on the November ballot.
Opponents say the measure is another attack on traditional marriage, but supporters say the move is needed to have a discussion on the high court ruling.
www.nwcn.com/statenews/washington/stories/NW_020507WABinitiative9 |
