OLYMPIA (AP) — Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced an initiative that would put a whole new twist on traditional unions between men and women: It would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriages annulled.
Initiative 957 was filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, which was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington’s ban on same-sex marriage. In that 5-4 ruling, the court found that state lawmakers were justified in passing the 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which restricts marriage to unions between a man and woman.
Under I-957, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriages would be subject to annulment.
All other marriages would be defined as “unrecognized” and people in them would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.
Here's the text of the initiative.
It's meant to make some sort of puerile statement, but I think it might have some merit. People who have children not only have a stake in the future, but are doing their part to ensure its stability. Every so often some prissy non-breeder will sneer at my seven kids, and I'll be forced to point out that, in a few years, they'll be paying for his Social Security. Without children, there's not much point in being here in the first place.
Savor the irony of this money quote:
Gregory Gadow, who filed I-957 last month, said the three-year timeframe was arbitrary.
“We did toy with the idea of (requiring) procreation before marriage,” he said. “We didn’t want to piss off the fundamentalists too much.”
No? Exactly how much did you want to piss them off, Gregory? Enough to take you seriously? Yeah, this'll do it.
If this is shot down, I think I'm going to file another initiative. In order to receive any government benefits whatsoever, the recipient must prove that he or she has not actively avoided procreation. In other words, they must be heterosexual, either married or at least have had serious relationships, and not have practiced contraception during childbearing years. I don't want to discriminate against the genuinely infertile, but as far as I'm concerned, if you're intentionally not doing your part to ensure a future tax base, then any resources you consume are wasted. The non-procreator is, in the long run, nothing more than a parasite. Gregory, for all his high opinion of himself, is just another drain on society. And we, those lowbrow breeders who fill the McDonald's Playland and fuel the Pampers profit margin, are enabling him to feed off us. In exchange for which, instead of appreciation, we're expected to praise his uselessness. We produce, he consumes, and he thinks that proves his superiority.
An Afterthought: My wife thinks I was being kind of heavy-handed when I posted this earlier today, and I really was. I do know a number of people who don't have children but who nevertheless make the world a better place. (Yes, Emily, I'm thinking of you.) I also know people who contracept for a limited time intending to have children when they feel more ready for them. That's their call to make, not mine.
As far as I'm concerned, though, the sort of people who denigrate my family for its size have no business expecting those same children to support them when they get old. Those people are cordially invited to apply to the Terri Schiavo School of Economics.
And as regards the original silly-ass initiative by the gay-marriage crowd, children are an integral part of a marriage. Some marriages are not blessed with them, and that's the way it goes, but a childless marriage is neither the norm nor the ideal. That these people take it for granted that children are a liability only shows their extreme tunnel vision.
No comments:
Post a Comment