What do you think about requiring married people to have kids, in the sanctity of marriage?

The Washington State Supreme Court upheld the 1998 Defense of Marriage Act recently (limits marriage to between a man and a woman). Their defense was that marriage was sacred between a man and a woman and for the purpose of procreation.





So the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance (supported by gay and lesbian groups) came up with I-957. The initiative, if passed, would require all married people to have a kid within 3 years of marriage, or else the marriage would be annulled. They freely admit that this is ridiculous.





But they argue that for the same reason heterosexuals shouldn't be forced to procreate, homosexuals shouldn't be excluded from marriage.





Here are my questions:


Do you think they have a valid argument about marriage rights?


Do you think that the Wash. St. Supreme Court made an error in their justification for upholding the Defense of Marriage Act?


Also, what are your thoughts on this case?What do you think about requiring married people to have kids, in the sanctity of marriage?
That is up to their conscience and $$$$$$$$What do you think about requiring married people to have kids, in the sanctity of marriage?
Interesting argument. You're right, requiring married people to have a child is rediculous. Some people aren't cut out to be parents, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have children. Children need a mother and a father (female mother, male father) in order to be socialized and develop properly, scientific research has proved this. Imagine growing up if you had two dads or two moms, and all your friends had a mom and a dad. Things would be very different.





Plus, some people are sterile or infertile. So they're not allowed to be married? Total crap.
That is total crap, and they know it will never ever pass and are just trying to make a point. My husband I (1) are not sure for medical reasons whether I can bear children or not and (2) do not intend to try making any until we have a real home (we're in a small apartment) and an income that can properly support children. So our loving, committed marriage should be declared invalid because we're being responsible, or because we may find out five years into it that we can't produce children? What about people who have it in their hearts to adopt instead of adding to the world's population? They couldn't be married either under this stupid initiative.





Even if this bullsh*t did pass, we would still be married. Marriage is a commitment we made to each other before the Lord and our friends and family, not the Washington State Legislature. We were married by our pastor and will remain married whether the homos can deal with it or not. God made marriage, and the sacred union between a man and a woman has been around a lot longer than the State of Washington.
Good question.


First, the Washington S.Ct. did not have a ';defense';. They decided the case.


Second, I agree with their ruling and their logic.


Third, I-957 is an ill-concieved bill that makes its advocates look spiteful and hateful.
Absolutely the Defense of Marriage Act was wrong. And the Washington Supreme Court argument even stupider. Not all that marry procreate. Marriage is a civil contract-what peaople do with it, moral or immoral or whatever is beyond our control. We only control our own marriages.
The key difference is that homosexuals CANNOT reproduce. It is biologically impossible (with the exception of in-vitro, etc).





Most people should NOT be having children in the first place. Why would you punish couples who are smart enough to wait until they are financially and emotionally ready to raise a child properly?





This offends me to high heavens because this law would annul my five year marriage for the simple reason that we were smarter than most other people our age.





If it is illegal to NOT procreate in a marriage, does that make it illegal TO procreate OUT of marriage?





No, they do not have a valid argument. By freely admitting it is ridiculous, they have annulled their argument.





Procreation alone is a silly reason to uphold the marriage act. However, marriage is not just about procreation. ANY couple can have the benefits of marriage by filing a few documents. There is no need to change the definition of a word to meet the DEMANDS of less than 3% of the population.
On one of those Sunday news shows a government official called the act satire.





That the court would uphold it as a possibility is righteous of them if domestic partnerships were included as a prenuptual option. Partnership could be any two cohabitating people (three even?) that depend upon each other, not neccessarily sexual relationships.
Exclusion and force are two different things.





Back to the drawing board for you.
what about people that find out they CAN';T have kids....medically.... that means they can't be married for longer than 3 years at a time...ever? wtf? ridiculous. why do gay people want to get married? why? the tax break? why do they have to bring marriage into the equation? really, it's all about sex anyway, isn't it? that's what gay is...being SEXUALLY attracted to the same sex. so...why bring love and marriage into it at all? i love my best friend more than most people. she's like a sister to me. i'd do anything for her. she's a good companion to me and i know she would be for life. i could live with her. one of the only people i probably could share a house with. but i don't want to have sex with her because i'm not gay. what does that say...homosexuality has nothing to do with love, friendship, companionship or co-existence. those things go along with it, sure, but that's not the point of being gay. it's for the sex. so...do what you want in your own bedroom. what the hell do i care? but leave marriage out of it.
Funny, yet pithy. Basically the gay/lesbian population is sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong (procreation) just as the straight population does. Why shouldn't they try and pass a judgmental illogical and biased bill just as the straight population has tried to interfere in their personal lives through legislation? Turnabout is fair play etc....





I agree that they have a point and I appreciate that they have a sense of humor (and logic) to their argument. I have always wondered, what is the whole ';saving'; marriage that the overly religious talk about? Just have a legal word other than marriage for a civil union (Hey! we can call it a civil union) and let it go. Why should anyone care who marries who? Does it effect your life at all? No. And I am surprised by all the bigotry in some of my fellow Y/A answers - if someone is gay, they are gay, marriage is more about legal rights that spouses have therefore it is about government and law. Legally, it would be great if it passes. We are a nation of laws, and it is important that points be refined. The Washington Defense of Marriage act has legality issues, so it is being tested - as all laws are. The bigots should pick dumber targets to legislate against apparently.
The day I'm told I should have kids in 3 years, is the same day they can kiss my a*s.