Kids required for marriage

Washington State Initiative would require married couples to have kids

An initiative has been introduced in the U.S. state of Washington that would require a married couple to have children within three years, or else their marriage would become void.

The activist group Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance (WA-DOMA) filed Initiative 957 on January 26. If passed, marriage in the state would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. In order to receive a marriage license, a couple would have to assert that they “know of no reason” that they cannot have children. 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.

WA-DOMA formed in 2006 in response to the decision in the case Andersen v. King County, where the state Supreme Court upheld Washington’s ban on same-sex marriage. The court found the 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which restricts marriage to unions between a man and woman, was proper. In the decision, the court reasoned that there was a “legitimate state interest” in limiting marriage to couples capable of having children.

WA-DOMA is in favor of gay marriage rights. The purpose of the initiative, according to founder Gregory Gadow, is to show that the logic behind the DOMA ruling is absurd. ‘For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation … The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine,’ said Gadow. ‘If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage.’

Supporters of I-957 must gather at least 224,800 valid signatures by July 6 to put it on the November ballot. The alliance says if the initiative were passed, the state supreme court would likely strike it down as unconstitutional, which would in turn weaken the Court’s reasoning in upholding the Defense of Marriage Act.

The measure’s backers have said they are planning two additional initiatives. One would prohibit divorce or separation when a married couple has children, and would make having a child together the equivalent of marriage.

Other gay rights groups do not support the paper. Activist Bill Dubay commented that while he gets the point of the initiative, it is unlikely he would sign it. The gay advocacy group Equal Rights Washington does not endorse the bill, stressing that that families come in all forms, with or without children, and that laws should help families, not hurt them.

- Source: Wikinews

I saw this article yesterday, but was waiting for it to be confirmed as authentic. I have mixed feelings about the attempt to pass such an initiative.

On the one hand, the barring of marriage of people unable to have children actually does makes sense, and is actually perfectly in line with Catholic teaching. According to Catholic teaching, a couple who wishes to get married must, at the point of time that they are marriage, be able to procreate. Impotence or infertility at the time of marriage is grounds for annulment.

On the other hand, the WA-DOMA is in favour of gay marriage rights, which undermines the sanctity of marriage itself, which kind of makes the group’s existence self-contradictory.

It would be interesting to watch how this plays out, and even more interesting if the initiative gets passed.

4 Responses

  1. “According to Catholic Teaching, a couple who wishes to get married must, at the time that they are marriage (sic), be able to procreate. Impotence or infertility at the time of the marriage is grounds for annulment”

    This is inaccurate. Catholic teaching is that at the time of marriage, a couple must be open to receiving children. Infertility does NOT preclude marriage in the Catholic Church. Impotence at the time of the marriage is grounds for annulment only if it is persistent, and the marriage is never consummated.

  2. I find this initiative to be facinating. For to long, our governments have been trying to come up with “logical” reasons as to why homosexuals should not be allowed to get married. This initiative is a logical following of the state’s Supreme Court argument. If part of the definition of marriage limits it to two people who can procreate, then why not make that a requirement of marriage? And furthermore, why not remove children from homes where the parents aren’t married. It is when we continue and draw out these arguments that we see that, while at first blush, saying homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to get married because they can’t procreate may sound right, they don’t make sense at all.

    While it sounds absurd, it seems to me that within the context of the anti-gay marriage debate, it makes perfect sense. Equal rights and restrictions for all.

  3. Hi Caryn,

    Yes, you are right. Impotence is at the time of the marriage is grounds for annulment only if it is persistent, and the marriage is never consummated. Naturally then, the couple isn’t open to receiving children.

    Hi Elissa B.,

    It would be a good idea to limit marriage to two people who can procreate. But to remove children from homes where the parents aren’t married is not a good idea, primarily because it is not in the child’s best interest to have him or her separated from his biological parent, if it can be helped.

    God bless,
    Catholic Writer

Leave a Reply