Marshall/Newman, phone home

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:

  • add the phrase, “who are capable of having children with one another” to the legal definition of marriage;
  • require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;
  • require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as “unrecognized;”
  • establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and
  • make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits.

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

Hat tips to Waldo and Vivian.

This entry was posted in Commentary, News and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Marshall/Newman, phone home

  1. TLM says:

    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. 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 says:

    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 🙂