How do you get people to sympathize with your currently unpopular issue? Piss them off!
OLYMPIA, Wash. – An initiative filed by proponents of same-sex marriage would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriage annulled.
Initiative 957 was filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance. That group was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington’s ban on same-sex marriage.
So let’s see, gays want to marry, but they can’t have kids except through adoption. And most don’t want to go that route. Straights want to marry and they can have biological children, although some can’t by medical condition while others choose not to have children.
Yes, I see the parallel. ::rolleyes
The question I have is what’s the matter with civil unions? When I’ve asked gay activists about these, they adamantly oppose it, although it grants the same protections as marriage.
My objection? Marriage is a religious institution. It’s been adopted by the state for many legal reasons– and there are many reasons that are reasonable to extend to same-sex partners. However, as marriage is a religious institution, still, and many Christians and other religious want to keep marriage the holy endeavor that it is, it is not unreasonable to separate the state recognized joining and the religiously recognized joining.
Here’s a solution that can apply to each party.
If you, gay or straight, get married in a civil manner, outside of a religious institution, then you are “unioned“, not married. All marriages will be considered “unions” by the state. The union will be restricted to two partners. Polygamy is still illegal.
If you have your “union” joined in a religious ceremony, then you are “married”. You still have to obtain a “union license”, but the ceremony is performed with all the respect due the overseeing religious body.
No annulling marriages with no kids. No denying rights to life partners. A compromise that makes sense and keeps the state out of church affairs and vice versa.