WA Ballot Measure Would Require Married Procreate

[DoubtingStephen]

A state ballot measure introduced in Olympia, WA would give newly married heterosexual couples a 3 year window during which they must procreate. Failure to propduce offspring would result in the automatic annulment of their marriage vows.

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. The measure would define and extend the Biblical responsibilities of male/female couples, as an extension of the law that makes marriage benefits available only to heterosexual couples under civil law.

The bill purports to reflect the will of conservative voters, who are obviously entitled by their majority position to dictate the required marital behaviors of all Washington residents, regardless of religious affiliation, lack thereof, or sexual orientation.

(source)

 

[Oliver]

A state ballot measure introduced in Olympia, WA would give newly married heterosexual couples a 3 year window during which they must procreate. Failure to propduce offspring would result in the automatic annulment of their marriage vows.

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. The measure would define and extend the Biblical responsibilities of male/female couples, as an extension of the law that makes marriage benefits available only to heterosexual couples under civil law.

The bill purports to reflect the will of conservative voters, who are obviously entitled by their majority position to dictate the required marital behaviors of all Washington residents, regardless of religious affiliation, lack thereof, or sexual orientation.

(source)

That's the stupidest thing I heard in a while - besides ID.
Doesn't the Constitution separate Church and State? So
how are those biblical laws legitimate - and what's the
purpose of such a Bill?

 

[Terry]

It's a reducto ad absurdam, it is supposed to be stupid.

 

[Oliver]

It's a reducto ad absurdam, it is supposed to be stupid.

Most probably. But is it legal? :

"The measure would define and extend the Biblical responsibilities of male/female couples"

This certainly is a Christian faith-based bill - and therefore a religious
Law preferring one religious stance over other religious stances.

This would make this Bill an illegal one, wouldn't it?

 

[Ladewig]

That's the stupidest thing I heard in a while - besides ID.
Doesn't the Constitution separate Church and State? So
how are those biblical laws legitimate - and what's the
purpose of such a Bill?

Did you read the link?

The initiative was filed by homosexuals that were offended by conservatives claiming that marriage is about procreation and that people who cannot procreaye together have no right to be married.

 

[Oliver]

Did you read the link?

The initiative was filed by homosexuals that were offended by conservatives claiming that marriage is about procreation and that people who cannot procreaye together have no right to be married.

Oops. Sorry, I missed the link.

 

[DoubtingStephen]

Doesn't the Constitution separate Church and State?

If the Constitution separates Church and State, then what is the compelling reason that the state uses to justify the restriction of marriage exclusively to heterosexual couples? The answer, according to the state Supreme Court is that only heterosexual couples can produce offspring.

This ballot initiative seeks to further the compelling need of the state to see to it that married couples produce new taxpayers.

If we let infertile couples marry, or we allow marriage among couples that willfully interfere with the compelling need of the state for new taxpayers, then what is next? Polygamy? Man-Donkey marriages that can not produce human children?

This bill simply seeks to further delineate and put into law the will of the voters and the desperate requirement of the state of Washington that all married couples produce spawn.

I realize that some reasonable people may consider this to be an exercise in humor, or as that other guy said a reduction to absurdity, but marriage is a serious business. The state of Washington has identified a need to protect itself from married couples that can not or will not produce offspring. This ballot measure is highly patriotic and is intended to protect the people of Washington from those who would intentionally use birth control or refrain from performing their marital duties.

 

[Slayhamlet]

Most probably. But is it legal? :

"The measure would define and extend the Biblical responsibilities of male/female couples"

This certainly is a Christian faith-based bill - and therefore a religious
Law preferring one religious stance over other religious stances.

This would make this Bill an illegal one, wouldn't it?

The intention of the people introducing the bill isn't to get it passed, Oliver. They're making a point. If it were to be passed (which it won't) it would be struck down by the courts immediately.

 

[DoubtingStephen]

The intention of the people introducing the bill isn't to get it passed, Oliver. They're making a point. If it were to be passed (which it won't) it would be struck down by the courts immediately.

Indeed, it is exactly as you say. Do you think the ballot measure makes the point very well?

My view is quite certainly colored by certain facts relevant to me on a personal level. I'm interested to know what others think of this ballot initiative.

As a general rule, and especially in my current state of residence in California, ballot initiatives seem to most often be a tool of deceit and manipulation. I guess in that way they resemble politicians.

 

[pchams]

That is an excellent way to make a point.
However, it never ceases to amaze me how these lobby groups manage to
take up valuable legislative time to impose a useless point.
Waste of money comes to mind, but I guess almost all of it is a waste of time.

Lobby, lobby, lobby.
- Sam Walton slightly paraphrased

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

A state ballot measure introduced in Olympia, WA would give newly married heterosexual couples a 3 year window during which they must procreate. Failure to propduce offspring would result in the automatic annulment of their marriage vows.

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. The measure would define and extend the Biblical responsibilities of male/female couples, as an extension of the law that makes marriage benefits available only to heterosexual couples under civil law.

The bill purports to reflect the will of conservative voters, who are obviously entitled by their majority position to dictate the required marital behaviors of all Washington residents, regardless of religious affiliation, lack thereof, or sexual orientation.

(source)

You know, if you're gonna steal material from The Onion, you really should give them credit.

 

[LawnOven]

Hmm, I wonder how many good Christians will vote for this ballot measure in earnest because they think its a good idea.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The devoutly religious have always chosen what pieces of their own religions they're going to pay attention to. They tend to follow, rigidly, prohibitions on behaviors that they themselves have no desire to do, while ignoring prohibitions on behaviors they like doing.

I asked a self-described devout Christian once why, if he were so very certain of the absolute truth of Christianity and the holy message of Jesus, he didn't do as Jesus instructed and give away all his possessions and money and leave his middle-class college and comfortable life to go spread the word of Jesus to the poor. He said that times have changed, and that he could go to law school and make money and follow Jesus, although not in the way Jesus himself said to.

 

[Zep]

So when a wife reaches menopause, three years later her marriage will be annulled? Unless she continues to adopt starving African orphans until she dies or something?

It's parody, but of the lowest order.

 

[The Fool]

I wish to help but the misus is getting a bit long in the tooth....will the government provide me a fertile woman?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

So when a wife reaches menopause, three years later her marriage will be annulled? Unless she continues to adopt starving African orphans until she dies or something?

It's parody, but of the lowest order.

There will be no purpose to the marriage, so presumably yes.

Unless of course there IS another purpose to marriage other than procreation, in which case the Court ruling was wrong.

 

[Beerina]

I wish to help but the misus is getting a bit long in the tooth....will the government provide me a fertile woman?

Ask 'em for a chair, too, for your wife to sit in and laugh at you as you try to do the deed with a sweet young thing.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Hmm, I wonder how many good Christians will vote for this ballot measure in earnest because they think its a good idea.

Very few. They argue that marriage is about procreation but clearly don't believe it as they are not proposing this sort of law in their anti gay marriage laws.

 

[GreNME]

I realize that some reasonable people may consider this to be an exercise in humor, or as that other guy said a reduction to absurdity, but marriage is a serious business.

Like the internet.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I wish to help but the misus is getting a bit long in the tooth....will the government provide me a fertile woman?

You must take unto yourself an handmaiden, even as Leah was unto Abrahams or something. Don't you read your Bibble? It should be required in school, so that we might know the laws of Glod. God. Sorry. I haveth trouble typing since I plucked out the fingers that offended me.