The Marital Litmus Test
by Joe Carter
February 6, 2007
According to World magazine’s blog, “Defenders of same-sex marriage in Washington have filed an initiative that would require heterosexual couples to have children within three years of tying the knot — or have their marriages annulled.” NWCN.com, a Washington State news site, quotes the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance (WA-DOMA) as saying:
“For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation … The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine,” said WA-DOMA organizer Gregory Gadow in a printed statement. “If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage.”
For the moment, let’s take this group seriously enough to examine the question, “Is marriage solely for the purpose of creation?” My tentative answer: Yes and no. I agree with natural law thinker Robert George, who says, “Here is the core of the traditional understanding: Marriage is a two-in-one-flesh communion of person that is consummated and actualized by acts that are reproductive in type, whether or not they are reproductive in effect…” He adds: “Although not all reproductive-type acts are marital, there can be no marital act that is not reproductive in type.”
A number of factors could prevent a married couple from having a child within three years (e.g., what if the child is stillborn?) so it would be unfair to penalize them for something that is beyond their control. Instead, a more reasonable criteria should be established that is based on actions that are solely within their power. For example, all couples who wish to marry–both gay and straight–must be willing and able to engage in “marital acts”, acts that are reproductive in type. To paraphrase the WA-DOMA, those couples who cannot or will not engage in marital acts that are reproductive in type should equally be barred from marriage.
Family Research Council is a 501c(3) non-profit organization. If this post has been helpful to you, please consider a gift to help us continue to advance Faith, Family, and Freedom.
Comments
I’m unsure what acts you are referencing with the quote, “engage in marital acts that are reproductive”. That could mean intercourse, or that could mean IVF or even adoption given the breadth of opinions I’ve read.
If I have it right, you are making the point that it would bar the same-sex arrangement outright? I don’t believe that point is lost on them. But they state the purpose of the legislation outright. They wish to either discredit marriage or the initiative process.
When it eventually backfires, we’ve been promised that it will invalidate the premise that marriage is about responsible procreation. Because that is the premise of the initiative.
But it will not because the stated premise is wrong, but because of a different flaw. One that many marriage neuterers even acknowledge openly.
“Group thought” is what killed Christ. Stop letting men who week in week out are exposed for being just as flawed as the rest of us do your thinking for you. Especially when they are involved in politics….
I think it’s a super idea. I mean, if gays can’t marry because of not producing children – then I think it’s only right that straights can’t. And there should be no “grey areas.” Such as one of the couples being sterile for any reason. So weather it’s nature or a choice (hmmm – sounds like a very familiar argument)- no wedding day for you!
One shouldn’t make rules and then be angry when the rules apply to them.
GO WASHINGTON!
This is a tough one, because I think that the argument is based on the wrong question. The question should not be, “Is the union of marriage based on a couples’ ability to procreate,” but rather “Does the legal system truly have any right to dictate laws for marriage in the first place?” The whole concept of marriage was supposed to be a religious ceremony, it became legalized only in the matter of property and inheritance. If the union of marriage is based on a religious system, then the people being married should follow the religious rules. If it is based on the legal system, then we should be asking ourselves, “What business is it of the law if people are homosexual or not?” The debate of homosexual relationships is a religious one, not a secular (legal) one. Therefore, if marriage is seen as a legalized union, it should not matter what the sexual orientation of the couple is. The law should be imposed only when someone else’s rights or wellbeing are being threatened, not when only regarding someone’s consulting happiness.
Good points, Aslinn.
I think the most important thing about marriage today (in the secular sense) is the protection that marriage law extends to families, especially children. In my mind children always come first.
So i think that when gay couples raise children, Christians should do whatever we can to help them receive all of the benifits of marriage.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that the raising of children is more important than how those children became part of the family.
Aslinn,
I couldn’t have put it better myself. I think that if the supporters of gay rights could voice what you have stated instead of the mocking tone they have adopted with this proposal then the act would not be lost on so many people.
Seems like heterosexuals just don’t want their own debate used against them or applied to them.
It’s okay to use your religious beliefs to decide the rights of certain citizens and it’s okay to deny them rights they deserve as Americans but it’s not okay to apply those same ideals you push on the gay community onto yourselves?
Hypocrisy at it’s best.
“I couldn’t have put it better myself. I think that if the supporters of gay rights could voice what you have stated instead of the mocking tone they have adopted with this proposal then the act would not be lost on so many people.”
By: ProLifeBlogs | February 7, 2007 at 7:54 am
No Kids, No Marriage
Defenders of same-sex marriage in Washington have filed an initiative that would require heterosexual couples to have children within three years of tying the knot — or have their marriages annulled. – WorldMagBlog via FRCBlog News reports of prepared…