Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Marriage and Children

I don’t know how many of you have heard about the new law being pushed for in Washington State. It requires that all couples who marry have children within three years or there marriage will automatically be annulled. The law would make it impossible for anyone that can not bare children to stay married.

This law is an attempt by the gay lobby to accomplish two things. The first is to minimize marriage as an institution. The second is to allow challenges to come forward that question the right of the state to deny marriage based on a couples ability to have children.

Just getting this on a ballot, even if it doesn’t gain traction with the voters, will create all kinds of attention for the subject. The plight of the gay couple, who only wants to be legally recognized under the law, will be thrust before us. The debate on granting marriage to same sex couples has stalled, if not nose dived. State after state has voted in laws that require marriage to be between one man and one woman. This wave of legislation has forced a change in tactic on those who want gay marriage. The fact that some states our offering Civil Unions as an alternative is not enough.

Marriage has been a foundational institution of society for thousands of years. This binding union has been the cornerstone of peoples and nations. Through the right of marriage children are born and society lives and grows. Under this law being proposed marriage is being challenged to meet this societal demand or parish. Failure to provide offspring to the state will result in a termination of your marriage. I don’t know if it will be a binding requirement in order to obtain a marriage license. Will you have to sign an agreement to have children in order to qualify for the license to begin with? What about those couples who try and try only to be left wanting? Are you legally married prior to the birth of your child or is this some form of waiting period?

I don’t believe that this measure would stand up to the scrutiny of the voters but what problems will such a measure create in the future? How can one take the position that the ability to birth children should not be a stipulation of marriage without opening a whole new can of worms? Further, how can anyone deny the fact that marriage benefits society by setting up a structure where children can be brought forth? The position is tough to defend. The gay rights groups are counting on this very issue to turn the tide.

Article of Interest

Should divorce be against the law if you have children?
Should having a child force you to be recognized as married?

Labels: , ,


Anonymous Debbie said...

I posted on this early this morning. I think it's pathetic. Your question of 'should people be kept from divorcing if they have children' was a good one.

What are our lawmakers doing and thinking? They obviously have way too much time on their hands.

4:14 PM, February 07, 2007  
Blogger ablur said...

I just added an update. The ore I think about it the more I realize the size of the prize.

10:04 PM, February 07, 2007  
Anonymous Christi said...

A gay lobbyist said, "We're moving the ball down the field. We're getting over the hurdles of how people feel about the 'M' word."

They just keep pushing the envelope and hope that one day, voila, we'll all accept gay marriage as the norm.

10:22 AM, February 08, 2007  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home