Have kids or your marriage will be annulled
Here's one that should really go over well:
I married the second time around at age 59. My wife has gone through menopause. There's no way we're going to have kids. These crazies would annull our marriage. What about the people who are sterile?
What a bunch of jerks.
"An initiative filed by proponents of [equal] marriage would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriage annulled," The Associated Press reports Tuesday.
I married the second time around at age 59. My wife has gone through menopause. There's no way we're going to have kids. These crazies would annull our marriage. What about the people who are sterile?
What a bunch of jerks.
posted by walldon | 3:25 PM
1 Comments:
The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance is using sophisticated logic to point out the absurdity in a legal ruling. That action does not make the organization "a bunch of jerks" or "crazies."
This organization's website is http://www.wa-doma.org/. Below is a statement copied from it.
The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance seeks to defend equal marriage in this state by challenging the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling on Andersen v. King County. This decision, given in July 2006, declared that a “legitimate state interest” allows the Legislature to limit marriage to those couples able to have and raise children together. Because of this “legitimate state interest,” it is permissible to bar same-sex couples from legal marriage.
The way we are challenging Andersen is unusual: using the initiative, we are working to put the Court’s ruling into law. We will do this through three initiatives. The first would make procreation a requirement for legal marriage. The second would prohibit divorce or legal separation when there are children. The third would make the act of having a child together the legal equivalent of a marriage ceremony.
Absurd? Very. But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions which make up the Andersen ruling. By getting the initiatives passed, we hope the Supreme Court will strike them down as unconstitutional and thus weaken Andersen itself. And at the very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric.
Post a Comment
<< Home