Homosexuals Say Married Couples Required to Have Children

[Other_Eric]

Other Eric, have you even read this Initiative?

wa-doma.org/Initiative.aspx

It would annull the marriages of couples when they are past childbearing age, when they are trying to get pregnant, and so on.

The homoactivists have not stumbled upon a point. You can be sure that no stumbling was involved. This is a willful attempt to destroy marriage. It is not presented as a public service to further dialogue about marital duties. It is an attack on marriage, period. Everthing about this is intentional.

It seems to me that all this act does is codify an established element of canon law. Individuals may not enter into a marriage intending not to have children. I ask again why the government should subsidize any type of sexual relationship that is not going to bear the burden of rearing the next generation. That is no more marriage than the supposed joining of a same-sex couple. It might be advisable to add an adoption loophole into the act or to statutorily eliminate no-fault divorce but otherwise I tend to agree with this initiative.

 

[LRThunder]

It seems to me that all this act does is codify an established element of canon law. Individuals may not enter into a marriage intending not to have children. I ask again why the government should subsidize any type of sexual relationship that is not going to bear the burden of rearing the next generation. That is no more marriage than the supposed joining of a same-sex couple. It might be advisable to add an adoption loophole into the act or to statutorily eliminate no-fault divorce but otherwise I tend to agree with this initiative.

But this country isn’t entirely Catholic or Protestant. This isn’t a theocracy and we can’t force a Catholic view of marriage on those who aren’t Catholic.

Not to mention, it’s not the government’s business how many children (if any) a married couple has. Maybe in China or in the past, Nazi Germany, but not here in the U.S.

 

[mvinca]

It seems to me that all this act does is codify an established element of canon law. Individuals may not enter into a marriage intending not to have children. I ask again why the government should subsidize any type of sexual relationship that is not going to bear the burden of rearing the next generation. That is no more marriage than the supposed joining of a same-sex couple. It might be advisable to add an adoption loophole into the act or to statutorily eliminate no-fault divorce but otherwise I tend to agree with this initiative.

The problem with focusing on just the possibility of children is that it is only one aspect of marriage. The homosexual community could argue that they could just as well form a relationship and adopt children and raise a “family.” For the children’s sake, we don’t want that.

 

[Courtneyjo]

It seems to me that all this act does is codify an established element of canon law. Individuals may not enter into a marriage intending not to have children. I ask again why the government should subsidize any type of sexual relationship that is not going to bear the burden of rearing the next generation. That is no more marriage than the supposed joining of a same-sex couple. It might be advisable to add an adoption loophole into the act or to statutorily eliminate no-fault divorce but otherwise I tend to agree with this initiative.

Nice try at framing the argument as pro-Canon Law, but if you tend to agree with this Initiative, then you would like to see a couple past child-bearing years have their marriage annulled. And that’s just one example. WA-DOMA is performing a sleight of hand, and your agreement with them speaks for itself.

 

[Other_Eric]

Nice try at framing the argument as pro-Canon Law, but if you tend to agree with this Initiative, then you would like to see a couple past child-bearing years have their marriage annulled. And that’s just one example. WA-DOMA is performing a sleight of hand, and your agreement with them speaks for itself.

In the first place, I read nothing in the proposed initiative that would nullify the marriage of a couple that had already provided at least one child to society. If you’ve read something I haven’t you’ll have to point it out to me. Secondly, I fail to see what my own agreement with this initiative says about it, since I myself am not an issue in this discussion.

 

[Other_Eric]

The problem with focusing on just the possibility of children is that it is only one aspect of marriage. The homosexual community could argue that they could just as well form a relationship and adopt children and raise a “family.” For the children’s sake, we don’t want that.

I concede that children are but one component of a marriage like a leg on a chair is but one component of the chair. Yet, if you remove one leg from the chair, it is broken and no longer able to be used. It therefore seems to me that as a way of protecting the integrity of marriage, we endeavor to weed out those couples who are not willing to live up to everything the arrangement stands for.

As far as the adoption of children is concerned, I concede your point about those with same-sex attractions attempting to use that as a way of arguing for marriage. Yet, I note that most states already allow such individuals to adopt (thankfully, not Florida) and that this has simply not afforded them sympathy sufficient to win for them the marriage debate. By restricting statutory marriage to those couples who are capable of procreation or adoption, those with same-sex attractions will be in exactly the same position that they are in now.

 

[Other_Eric]

But this country isn’t entirely Catholic or Protestant. This isn’t a theocracy and we can’t force a Catholic view of marriage on those who aren’t Catholic.

Not to mention, it’s not the government’s business how many children (if any) a married couple has. Maybe in China or in the past, Nazi Germany, but not here in the U.S.

In the first place, the idea that marriage is for procreation is hardly one that is restricted to just Catholics and Protestants. Even without recourse to canon law or scripture, one using right reason can discern something incredibly wrong about a couple that enters into marriage with the intention of not rearing any children.

In the second place, if any individual is going to accept some sort of subsidy from the government, then it would be wholly ignorant for them not to expect that subsidy to come with conditions. Ask anyone who’s applied for a Stafford Loan or been granted a farm subsidy if they were shocked to learn that both of those things came with conditions and restrictions. It’s important to understand that no one is forcing people to get married. If one has no interest in having children, then there’s no need for one to get married and they need not be concerned about any government breathing down their necks.

 

[Courtneyjo]

… I fail to see what my own agreement with this initiative says about it, since I myself am not an issue in this discussion.

Good point and I apologize for having done so.

The problem with this initiative is that the supporters want to destroy marriage. They don’t care if folks say, “The initiative has merit and married couples should be having children within the first three years of marriage.” Instead they want to redirect married couples to say, "We don’t want the government to tell us that we need to have children. And if we don’t need to, then neither do homosexuals. Therefore, allow them to “marry” ".

All of the following scenarios would end in annullment of marriage within the first three years, yet within the eyes of the Church these couples are validly married:

**The wife falls ill with disease that requires her reproductive organs to be removed.
**The couple marry in their 40’s, intending to have children, but menopause occurs and she cannot have children.
**The husband discovers that he has a low sperm count. He spends years going from doctor to doctor for treatment, and finally discovers if he avoids hot baths and switches from briefs to boxers his fertility becomes normal.
**The wife has repeated miscarriages. Her insurance won’t pay for specialists. Habing saved the money, it’s discovered that with proper nutrition and hormonal support, she can maintain a pregnancy for nine months.
**The wife undergoes a series of illnesses where pregnancy must be avoided because it would kill her. It takes her several years to heal.

And once these marriages are annulled, the couples may not remarry.

WA-DOMA doesn’t really care if married couples have children or not. All they want is “marriage” for themselves. Since this can never be, they don’t want others to have it either.

 

[Other_Eric]

Good point and I apologize for having done so.

The problem with this initiative is that the supporters want to destroy marriage. They don’t care if folks say, “The initiative has merit and married couples should be having children within the first three years of marriage.” Instead they want to redirect married couples to say, "We don’t want the government to tell us that we need to have children. And if we don’t need to, then neither do homosexuals. Therefore, allow them to “marry” ".

All of the following scenarios would end in annullment of marriage within the first three years, yet within the eyes of the Church these couples are validly married:

**The wife falls ill with disease that requires her reproductive organs to be removed.
**The couple marry in their 40’s, intending to have children, but menopause occurs and she cannot have children.
**The husband discovers that he has a low sperm count. He spends years going from doctor to doctor for treatment, and finally discovers if he avoids hot baths and switches from briefs to boxers his fertility becomes normal.
**The wife has repeated miscarriages. Her insurance won’t pay for specialists. Habing saved the money, it’s discovered that with proper nutrition and hormonal support, she can maintain a pregnancy for nine months.
**The wife undergoes a series of illnesses where pregnancy must be avoided because it would kill her. It takes her several years to heal.

And once these marriages are annulled, the couples may not remarry.

WA-DOMA doesn’t really care if married couples have children or not. All they want is “marriage” for themselves. Since this can never be, they don’t want others to have it either.

It may be that the law, as written would annul marriage in each of the examples that you provide. This is why I have suggested adding an adoption loophole. Since the law, as it is now written, would require couples to obtain medical assurance that procreation is possible before the marriage is in effect, I have a hard time seeing that anyone with a preexisting medical condition would be able to enter into a marriage in the first place. So the issue of annulling such marriages that the Church would recognize is likely moot.

As I see it, those who are currently backing this initiative expect it to fail so that they can turn around and call people like us hypocrites. I contend that they have no idea what it is they are asking for and that, even though their intentions might be misguided, that should not overshadow the good that will result from a law such as this. If they want to play the part of the useful idiot and spitefully usher into law something that will make the rest of us begin to respect marriage more, you’ll pardon me if I oblige them.

 

[Courtneyjo]

It may be that the law, as written would annul marriage in each of the examples that you provide. This is why I have suggested adding an adoption loophole. Since the law, as it is now written, would require couples to obtain medical assurance that procreation is possible before the marriage is in effect, I have a hard time seeing that anyone with a preexisting medical condition would be able to enter into a marriage in the first place. So the issue of annulling such marriages that the Church would recognize is likely moot.

As I see it, those who are currently backing this initiative expect it to fail so that they can turn around and call people like us hypocrites. I contend that they have no idea what it is they are asking for and that, even though their intentions might be misguided, that should not overshadow the good that will result from a law such as this. If they want to play the part of the useful idiot and spitefully usher into law something that will make the rest of us begin to respect marriage more, you’ll pardon me if I oblige them.

Adoption takes time and money. Abortion reduces the number of children available for adoption. Many couples must travel overseas to adopt.

In none of the examples I gave were the conditions pre-existing. All of the marriages were consummated.

The Church doesn’t require medical assurance of the ability to procreate. Nor does it put time limits on doing so.

I live in WA. So many, many good marriages that could have resulted in children would l be annulled. Many, many marriages where one or the other spouses develops health problems would be annulled. And don’t forget the military member who in the course of his first three years of marriage has been away for training and back-to-back tours of Iraq. Attempts at procreation failed? Marriage annulled.

If this initiative passes, the only result will be large legal fees and new taxes with people burdened with attempts to have this overturned. The folks who want this initiavtive to pass call many others hypocrites anyway. That is when they’re not calling them other names. Some person or persons will be playing the part of the useful idiot, but it won’t be WA-DOMA.

 

[Other_Eric]

Adoption takes time and money. Abortion reduces the number of children available for adoption. Many couples must travel overseas to adopt.

In none of the examples I gave were the conditions pre-existing. All of the marriages were consummated.

The Church doesn’t require medical assurance of the ability to procreate. Nor does it put time limits on doing so.

I live in WA. So many, many good marriages that could have resulted in children would l be annulled. Many, many marriages where one or the other spouses develops health problems would be annulled. And don’t forget the military member who in the course of his first three years of marriage has been away for training and back-to-back tours of Iraq. Attempts at procreation failed? Marriage annulled.

If this initiative passes, the only result will be large legal fees and new taxes with people burdened with attempts to have this overturned. The folks who want this initiavtive to pass call many others hypocrites anyway. That is when they’re not calling them other names. Some person or persons will be playing the part of the useful idiot, but it won’t be WA-DOMA.

Any lucid system of governance is going to be based on reason, not emotion. You have provided a fair number of examples meant to tug at the heartstrings, but few that can withstand dispassionate scrutiny. The bottom line for me is that marriage is on the ropes even without same-sex unions and this can be traced to romantic idealizations of this sacred institution. We should applaud any legislation that seeks to eliminate such emotional tripe, replace it with reason and get the general public to once again realize that true marriage comes with definite obligations that people need to be prepared to accept.

Abortion definitely thins the adoption pool, but it does not eliminate it. Yes, adoption is expensive and there may be some additional subsidy that the state could offer to couples interested in going that route. Still, I don’t think that the expense of adoption should rule out this sort of law.

It also seems there was some heretofore-unmentioned condition that you wished to attach to all of your examples in order to illustrate the injustice. I suppose I could respond to those as well before you found yet another unmentioned qualification. That game could go on for days. Indeed, it is possible to come up with all sorts of strained and arcane scenarios under which a childless marriage could potentially be unjustly annulled. Writing legislation to accommodate whatever overwrought situation the mind can conjure makes for bad law.

For the soldier, you do have a point. Since the soldier is accommodating the state in other ways, it may be acceptable to exempt him from the penalties of this law while he remains on active duty. Nevertheless, this, like the adoption loophole only requires a small adjustment. It certainly does not follow that the law should be rejected for this reason alone.

As far as legal fees go, I am unsympathetic. I expect there to be large legal fees for anyone who attempts to thwart this or any law. Defiance ought to be expensive.

That new taxes will be levied, I find specious. What, exactly, would the new taxes go to pay for? I would like to see some sort of economic cost-benefit analysis before I would stipulate to that.

There may be some additional fees associated with obtaining the medical documentation necessary to validate fertility, but it seems to me that much of that can be done with existing medical insurance. Any other fees and the bride and bridegroom may just have to bear a slightly less extravagant wedding reception. It’s never too late to learn humility.

In the end, this law aims to shore up one of the core components of what makes a marriage a marriage. In this day and age, when marriage is essentially looked upon as a temporary means of self-centered wish fulfillment, it is a lesson that is badly needed. I ask you a second time why the government should be asked to subsidize the sexual relationships of couples that willfully choose to make their relationship a dead end.

 

[Courtneyjo]

Any lucid system of governance is going to be based on reason, not emotion. You have provided a fair number of examples meant to tug at the heartstrings, but few that can withstand dispassionate scrutiny. The bottom line for me is that marriage is on the ropes even without same-sex unions and this can be traced to romantic idealizations of this sacred institution. We should applaud any legislation that seeks to eliminate such emotional tripe, replace it with reason and get the general public to once again realize that true marriage comes with definite obligations that people need to be prepared to accept.

Abortion definitely thins the adoption pool, but it does not eliminate it. Yes, adoption is expensive and there may be some additional subsidy that the state could offer to couples interested in going that route. Still, I don’t think that the expense of adoption should rule out this sort of law.

It also seems there was some heretofore-unmentioned condition that you wished to attach to all of your examples in order to illustrate the injustice. I suppose I could respond to those as well before you found yet another unmentioned qualification. That game could go on for days. Indeed, it is possible to come up with all sorts of strained and arcane scenarios under which a childless marriage could potentially be unjustly annulled. Writing legislation to accommodate whatever overwrought situation the mind can conjure makes for bad law.

For the soldier, you do have a point. Since the soldier is accommodating the state in other ways, it may be acceptable to exempt him from the penalties of this law while he remains on active duty. Nevertheless, this, like the adoption loophole only requires a small adjustment. It certainly does not follow that the law should be rejected for this reason alone.

As far as legal fees go, I am unsympathetic. I expect there to be large legal fees for anyone who attempts to thwart this or any law. Defiance ought to be expensive.

That new taxes will be levied, I find specious. What, exactly, would the new taxes go to pay for? I would like to see some sort of economic cost-benefit analysis before I would stipulate to that.

There may be some additional fees associated with obtaining the medical documentation necessary to validate fertility, but it seems to me that much of that can be done with existing medical insurance. Any other fees and the bride and bridegroom may just have to bear a slightly less extravagant wedding reception. It’s never too late to learn humility.

In the end, this law aims to shore up one of the core components of what makes a marriage a marriage. In this day and age, when marriage is essentially looked upon as a temporary means of self-centered wish fulfillment, it is a lesson that is badly needed. I ask you a second time why the government should be asked to subsidize the sexual relationships of couples that willfully choose to make their relationship a dead end.

This bill does not address government subsidies for anyone, so your question is beside the point and off topic. We are talking about state, not federal law, in a state with no income tax. Still beside the point.

You want to have a state subsidy to help couples adopt? But isn’t this subsidizing a sexual relationship? And just where will the money for this come from? Where will the money come from to support the new bureaucracy needed for this law? I have no cost analysis to offer, but in the real world, the answer is taxes.

There may some additonal medical costs? The state will demand documentation for tests that engaged couples do not now need. This means a rise in medical insurance costs.

The bride and groom should have a less extravagant wedding reception in order to cover new fees and it’s never too late to learn humility? So the state now requires people to have humility in order to marry?

You are unsympathetic to anyone who may have to pay large legal fees to thwart this or any other law. “Defiance ought to be expensive.” Right, and all laws are just, and the government never makes a mistake.

The situations I offered were not of “couples who willfully choose to make their relationships a dead end.” There were real-life examples from people I either know or have read about. This bill will not shore up marriage, but destroy it. If marriage is on the ropes then this will push it over the edge. It fits your definition of bad law–legislation to accomodate an overwrought situation. But to those who find this initiative acceptable, let them offer it to the legislators and voters in their state.

 

[stbruno]

Maybe we should read the part of the marriage rite that is said in the sacramental union of a man & woman before God…

What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.
So even if a civil court may decide to annul a marriage, in the eyes of the church and God, this couple will remained married.

Maybe that’s why the homosexual contingency is a bit miffed. More reasons to pray!

 

[Jennifer123]

Maybe we should read the part of the marriage rite that is said in the sacramental union of a man & woman before God…

What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.
So even if a civil court may decide to annul a marriage, in the eyes of the church and God, this couple will remained married.

Maybe that’s why the homosexual contingency is a bit miffed. More reasons to pray!

This gets to the heart of the matter - marriage isn’t necessarily all about love. Marriage is a social contract between a man and woman designed to protect and enhance society by producing a future that society depends.

It is an institution that goes beyond the two individuals involved. Marriage has been on the ropes ever since certain individuals deemed their satisfaction of most importance over the needs of society, i.e. the radical feminist agenda and now the homosexual revolution.

 

[Other_Eric]

This bill does not address government subsidies for anyone, so your question is beside the point and off topic. We are talking about state, not federal law, in a state with no income tax. Still beside the point.

You want to have a state subsidy to help couples adopt? But isn’t this subsidizing a sexual relationship? And just where will the money for this come from? Where will the money come from to support the new bureaucracy needed for this law? I have no cost analysis to offer, but in the real world, the answer is taxes.

There may some additonal medical costs? The state will demand documentation for tests that engaged couples do not now need. This means a rise in medical insurance costs.

The bride and groom should have a less extravagant wedding reception in order to cover new fees and it’s never too late to learn humility? So the state now requires people to have humility in order to marry?

You are unsympathetic to anyone who may have to pay large legal fees to thwart this or any other law. “Defiance ought to be expensive.” Right, and all laws are just, and the government never makes a mistake.

The situations I offered were not of “couples who willfully choose to make their relationships a dead end.” There were real-life examples from people I either know or have read about. This bill will not shore up marriage, but destroy it. If marriage is on the ropes then this will push it over the edge. It fits your definition of bad law–legislation to accomodate an overwrought situation. But to those who find this initiative acceptable, let them offer it to the legislators and voters in their state.

You are correct that the law as it is written now does not provide for subsidy for those who choose to adopt. This is why I have suggested that amendment. Since the state is equally capable as the federal government to provide subsidies to its citizens (Florida has several), the question of subsidy is exactly on point. How to pay for it is a question best left to the politicians and the local citizenry, I think, since I am unfamiliar with the state of Washington’s budget. More likely than not, there are probably any number of superfluous social service initiatives that could be cut in order to pay for this hypothetical subsidy.

As I see it, any new paperwork generated by this law will be able to be handled by government agencies already in place. Indeed, the law nowhere requires the creation of any new bureaucracy. As I see it, any increased workload would be minimal at best, restricted simply to the processing of additional paperwork. Nowhere do I see anything that would indicate a massive increase in the amount of money that will be needed to support the state agencies that already handle the processing of marriage licenses. The fear of an onslaught of new taxes based on speculations and assumptions is little more than paranoia.

I remain unsympathetic to anyone who would choose to thwart the law. Just law or unjust law, I am certainly not going to give to the general public the license to decide for itself which laws to obey and which to ignore without any penalty. Therein lies anarchy.

I do not see any conflict in a government encouraging people to be humble. The government already encourages almsgiving through charitable deductions on one’s income tax. Humility is a capital virtue, so why shouldn’t the government aim to encourage it in the citizenry? Do you honestly believe that what the country needs right now is more pride?

Basing a system of governance on the needs only of people you know or have read about also makes for unsound policy. I find the idea that one’s particular social circle is representative of larger society laughable. Any policy tailor made to suit the people you know and like would also be lacking in anything resembling objectivity. Stories written about individuals in media publications are also similarly unrepresentative. In order to sell papers, reporters tend to seek out the most extreme cases so that they can paint the rest of society with a broad and biased brush.

It seems that this discussion can bear no fruit until one of us comes up with something empirical. I am just as capable of conjuring up freakish nightmare scenarios as you are but that does not mean that any of the dystopias I am able to articulate are plausible or even likely. To this end, perhaps you could find out the costs involved in determining whether an individual is fertile and capable of bringing a child to term. How many tests, how invasive and how accurate? If the proposed initiative really will wreak havoc on the state’s budget and force the raising of taxes, perhaps it is best that you find out exactly what the budget of the state of Washington is so that we may begin to determine whether that is the case.

 

[Courtneyjo]

As I disagree with the premise that the Initiative would be good for marriage, I find playing the role of the useful idiot a waste of time and resources, thank you very much.

 

[Mirdath]

How about you guys figure out what you want the legal definition of marriage to be and then we’ll talk?

 

[Other_Eric]

How about you guys figure out what you want the legal definition of marriage to be and then we’ll talk?

What, then, do you propose as an appropriate definition of marriage?

 

[RyanL]

How about you guys figure out what you want the legal definition of marriage to be and then we’ll talk?

Marriage in the United States of America shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.

Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

2004 Version (H.J. Res. 106 (108th Congress 2004) and S.J. Res. 40 (108th Congress 2004))

Sounds good to me.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Mirdath]

What, then, do you propose as an appropriate definition of marriage?

Of marriage? I’ll leave that to people who are more concerned about appearances than rights – it’s something for churches to decide, not states. An appropriate definition of civil unions, however, would be more properly the domain of government. I believe I’ve already expressed what I think the ‘right’ definition of such a thing is earlier in this thread, at least implicitly; here’s a direct answer.

A civil union should consist of a contract between persons, consenting, of legal age, and not closely related, expressing a desire to live together and be considered a family unit for purposes of taxation, inheritance, hospital visitation, and other such rights as are currently considered contingent on ‘marriage’.