Marshall/Newman, phone home

February 4, 2007 by David | Tagged as: , , |

This is your bill.
(Full text)

Since the proponents of so-called “marriage amendments” insist that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation, and the Washington Supreme Court has cited a “legitimate state interest” in defining marriage exclusively for the purpose of procreation and child-rearing, a group of concerned Washington citizens has endeavored to give this definition the full force of law:

…The first initiative will make procreation a requirement for legal marriage. The second would prohibit divorce or separation when a married couple has children together…

Since Delegate Marshall has already introduced a version of the second measure in Virginia, we eagerly await the Virginia counterpart of this:

If passed by Washington voters, the “Defense of Marriage Initiative” would:

The best part is that Marshall and Newman will probably agree that this is a good idea.

Hat tips to Waldo and Vivian.

Bookmark and Share

Comments policy

This space belongs to the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and allied community. We welcome all in the larger community who wish to engage in honest, principled discussion of the sometimes controversial matters posted here. We have zero interest, however, in "debating" people who believe that we don't or shouldn't exist. That is not what this space is for. It is our home, and Equality Loudoun will administer it accordingly. Abusive or fraudulent posts will simply be removed. Other than that, please be kind to each other and enjoy this forum.

3 comments to “Marshall/Newman, phone home”

  1. TLM on February 5th, 2007 11:29 am

    Wonder if they could get any tax credits for TRYING to procreate?? Couples could
    be required to submit video of their efforts to maintain married status and
    get tax credits…

  2. B.T. Mendelsohn on February 7th, 2007 12:07 pm

    No remarriage for widows:As this law is depicted, that procreation, or at least intent to procreate, is a condition for a marriage to be valid, then women who are post menopause would not be able to remarry should they be widowed late in life. The same applies to those of us who elected voluntary sterilization after having all the children we thought we wanted. Is this law encouraging people to live together in sin?

    Proof or procreation: In some period motion pictures that I’ve seen, a community celebration of a marriage continued after the newlyweds went to bed, and climaxed the next morning by a parent of the couple hanging a bloody sheet out the window, which proved 1) the bride was a virgin when she married, and 2) the marriage was consummated. The same groups who advocate abstinence as the only means of birth control also support marriage only for procreation. Will they pass a law requiring bloody sheets be displayed after the honeymoon night? Is that sufficient proof or will require a witness be in the room with the couple?

  3. David on February 7th, 2007 1:38 pm

    Let’s hear it for the expansion of government. No doubt that for someone, somewhere, this monitoring task would be the perfect job. Your tax dollars at work :)