Goose & Gander: Procreation required for marriage

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I found this interesting. See link below for a press release about group in Washington State seeking a law to require procreation as part of definition of legal marriage:

http://www.wa-doma.org/news/PR20060126.aspx

[_asbestosman]

Oh crap! I got married in Seattle temple over 3 years ago and I don't have any kids yet.

I seriously doubt this will pass.

[_guy sajer]

I found this interesting. See link below for a press release about group in Washington State seeking a law to require procreation as part of definition of legal marriage:

http://www.wa-doma.org/news/PR20060126.aspx

So, an couple in which the woman is infertile or the man sterile cannot legally be married?

[_skippy the dead]

Oh. My. God. Are these people serious? This makes no sense whatsoever, and effectively bars a majority of people from marriage. And what of adoption? Are they invalidating this as a means of forming a family? Or what about if a couple marries, and one spouse has children from a prior marriage, and they decide not to have any other children together. Does that mean their marriage will be annulled? And as for the part that creates a marriage between two people if they have kids - what if one of them then has a kid with someone else - are we talking about state-created polygamy? There are at least a hundred other situations that would be problematic.

Yet another reason why the government needs to get out of the business of marriages altogether. There should be true separation of church and state, where religions can do whatever they want by way of who they allow to marry, and the state can deal with civil unions (like those countries in South America, where you get a civil marriage, then can do a religious one if you want - the religious ceremony has no legal standing).

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Oh. My. God. Are these people serious? This makes no sense whatsoever, and effectively bars a majority of people from marriage.

No, they are not serious. Their point is to demonstrate how absurd it is to justify a law against gay marriage based on "procreation."

And what of adoption? Are they invalidating this as a means of forming a family? Or what about if a couple marries, and one spouse has children from a prior marriage, and they decide not to have any other children together. Does that mean their marriage will be annulled?

Their point is that married gay folks can do all this just like heterosexuals can.

Yet another reason why the government needs to get out of the business of marriages altogether. There should be true separation of church and state, where religions can do whatever they want by way of who they allow to marry, and the state can deal with civil unions (like those countries in South America, where you get a civil marriage, then can do a religious one if you want - the religious ceremony has no legal standing).

I completely agree. Let churches be homophobic, but not the government.

[_skippy the dead]

No, they are not serious. Their point is to demonstrate how absurd it is to justify a law against gay marriage based on "procreation."

Whew. I suppose my first reaction was a bit too intense - I missed the irony.

When I was a BYU law student, many classmates would use the "the purpose of marriage is procreation" argument to justify their opposition to gay marriage. I would counter with various scenarios where procreation would not be possible (infertile woman, slow swimmers, older couple, etc. - asking "should these people not be allowed to marry?") that they could never effectively rebut, but of course that never succeeded in anybody expanding their opinions. They would just repeat the procreation argument over and over, as if continued repetition would somehow validate it.

[_Gazelam]

How many signatures would it take to get homosexuality declared as an illegal perversion comparable to beastiality?

[_harmony]

How many signatures would it take to get homosexuality declared as an illegal perversion comparable to beastiality?

More than you will ever collect. Your one signature is not enough to get anything on the ballot.

[_harmony]

No, they are not serious. Their point is to demonstrate how absurd it is to justify a law against gay marriage based on "procreation."

Whew. I suppose my first reaction was a bit too intense - I missed the irony.

When I was a BYU law student, many classmates would use the "the purpose of marriage is procreation" argument to justify their opposition to gay marriage. I would counter with various scenarios where procreation would not be possible (infertile woman, slow swimmers, older couple, etc. - asking "should these people not be allowed to marry?") that they could never effectively rebut, but of course that never succeeded in anybody expanding their opinions. They would just repeat the procreation argument over and over, as if continued repetition would somehow validate it.

Another BYU law student. Did you graduate? Are you familiar with Smac and Confidential Informant, also both former BYU law students?

[_skippy the dead]

Another BYU law student. Did you graduate? Are you familiar with Smac and Confidential Informant, also both former BYU law students?

Yup - I done did graduated. I've read their posts - can't say I always agree with their analyses of legal issues (in particular there was a lengthy thread a little while back about resignation from a religion and its effect on any pending ecclesiastical proceedings in which Smac relied entirely too much on footnotes in a dissenting opinion to be persuasive to me). Nonetheless, I enjoy reading their contributions. Do you know when they graduated?