marriage for breeders, only Options

[Divergent Realit...]

http://www.nwcn.com/statenews/washington/s...W.546c6a4d.html

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.

shit like this makes my head hurt...

[Spectatrix]

The gay marriage thing is pretty much exclusively what I'm talking about. I'm well aware that there are non-religious folks out there that are opposed to gay marriage, but it's definitely members of the religious right that are the driving force behind prohibiting it. They may be a vocal minority, but I think that most of the anti-gay marriage movement would fizzle without them.

I'm not trying to hate on religious folks here, I'm just sayin' what I've observed.

This post has been edited by Spectatrix: Feb 13 2007, 04:18 PM

[impala454]

The gay marriage thing is pretty much exclusively what I'm talking about. I'm well aware that there are non-religious folks out there that are opposed to gay marriage, but it's definitely members of the religious right that are the driving force behind prohibiting it.

well that's not too shocking considering gay marriage goes completely against almost all major religions. It doesn't mean we have some infiltration of the state by the church though. Ultimately the congress member's votes come from their home state/district's views, which is how it's supposed to be.

[Spectatrix]

Ultimately the congress member's votes come from their home state/district's views, which is how it's supposed to be.

I understand that. It's the old dilemma of the "tyranny of the majority". In many situations there is a balancing act between following the wishes of the majority and protecting the rights and wishes of some particular minority, homosexuals in this case. My personal philosophy on this and related issues is that I have absolutely no problem with religious views being an inspiration or guide for legislation (or lack thereof), but in a nation with separation of church and state, such legislation needs to be backed up with secular rationale.

So where's the solution here? Some have suggested setting up a civil institution similar to marriage for homosexuals, such as the civil unions that some states have. That's a step in the right direction, but currently partners in such unions receive some (Maine, Hawaii, DC) or all (Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey, California), of the same state benefits as married couples, but none of the same federal benefits. You could set up an equivalent institution, but call it something other than marriage, but then you have the old "separate, but equal" BS. Others have suggested abolishing civil marriage entirely, but that makes a mess of our current tax structure (among other things) and would undoubtedly piss people off more than simply permitting gay marriages/unions would. It's a conundrum, to be certain.

Regarding the original topic of this thread, I think this is a nice bit of satirical legislation. In all honesty, though, I could see this being real legislation with a few modifications. What about remarriages where one partner has custody of a child from a previous marriage? What about couples that are infertile (or don't want to have biological children), but wish to create a family unit through adoption? Of course, with provisions addressing these issues, it wouldn't be excluding homosexual couples and thus wouldn't be of benefit to the anti-gay marriage crowd.

This post has been edited by Spectatrix: Feb 13 2007, 06:30 PM