T Nation

Marriage for Procreation Only?

Filed under “Fags Fight Fascism”?

In Washington (state), some of the Pro-Gay Marriage club have introduced a bill that would require married couples to ‘get on with it already!’ and have a kid within 3 years OR ELSE.

From the article:
[i]The measure would require couples to prove they can have children to get a marriage license. Couples who do not have children within three years could have their marriages annulled.

The group said the proposal was aimed at "social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation."
[/i]

Source:

I can’t think of anyone making that argument, but I’m not in Washington.

Personally, I think that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. If everyone had to go to the gubmint for a civil union, and to their favorite church or whatever for a marriage, wouldn’t that solve the problem?

Marriage for Procreation Only?
Absolutely, dating is for sex…

It’s a straw man. The actual argument is that the government can give benefits in order to encourage procreation if that’s the rationale the government chooses to use to give those benefits. The government can similarly choose to give benefits to encourage stable two-adult households for child-rearing purposes if it so chooses – a related but substantially different position. And there are lots of variations.

Bottom line is the government can make benefits available on any basis it chooses, except for those prohibited to it under the Constitution. The only category close to being actually prohibited is race – and even that isn’t actually prohibited (see: affirmative action).

[quote]Cunnivore wrote:

Personally, I think that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. If everyone had to go to the gubmint for a civil union, and to their favorite church or whatever for a marriage, wouldn’t that solve the problem?[/quote]

I agree completely. This would be the simplest and fairest solution in practice. Unfortunately it will probably never happen.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
It’s a straw man. The actual argument is that the government can give benefits in order to encourage procreation if that’s the rationale the government chooses to use to give those benefits. The government can similarly choose to give benefits to encourage stable two-adult households for child-rearing purposes if it so chooses – a related but substantially different position. And there are lots of variations.

Bottom line is the government can make benefits available on any basis it chooses, except for those prohibited to it under the Constitution. The only category close to being actually prohibited is race – and even that isn’t actually prohibited (see: affirmative action).[/quote]

LOL!