At least in America, feelings about homosexuality have slowly begun to see a more liberal side. However, for most of the world, the idea of homosexuality is condemned and often ignored. I just watched a video on CNN.com that completely redefines our legal perspective on the institution of marriage and its possible consequences for future marriage hopefuls and thousands of married couples nationwide. Gregory Gadow, the author of Initiative 957, is currently collecting signatures in Seattle, Washington, to make procreation a requirement for married couples. Under 957 couples will have three years to have at least one child, or their marriage will be annulled, and newlyweds will have to prove that they can have children before receiving a marriage certificate. His initiative stems from his belief that the current ruling, which states that "Procreation between opposite-sex individuals within the framework of marriage was a legitimate government interest", is logically flawed. The ruling essentially says that from a legal standpoint, the only reason homosexuals can't get married is because they can't procreate. Gadow wants to demonstrate such ludicracy by imposing the same reasoning on heterosexual couples who cannot procreate as well.
Although I personally believe in a person's right to sexual preferences, I don't think Initiative 957 is going to solve the problem of discrimination on homosexual couples who want to get married. By fighting for the rights of homosexuals, 957 will then impinge on the rights of heterosexuals. As cliche' as this sounds, two wrongs don't make a right.
Is Gadow's logic flawed as well? Is this considered an "attack on marriage" or is it simply a defense for something bigger, say, human rights? Are our conflicting views on the definition of marriage going to one day spread and start a worldwide debate? What are the implications of such an event?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Intriguing clip - thanks for sharing...
I agree that the current ruling is logically flawed.
I believe that the reason why homosexuality is not universally accepted does not have to do with procreation, but rather what Americans think is "right" or "wrong" with respect to sexual preference.
It will be very interesting to see how public policy on marriage and/or civil union changes during the course of our lifetimes.
Very interesting piece. Quite a controversial way for Gadow to mock the state. In a sense, procreation is a social responsibility, one that may be assumed by the government in dire situations such as extreme population fluctuations. Reproduction is however a right reserved to an individual. Here's an interesting paper that encompasses some of the underlying issues at hand.
I agree that the current ruling is flawed, but its basis isn't. I think what George Bush is doing is to make one last "moral stand" because he's afraid that allowing same sex marriages will cause a unstoppable spiral of morals in this country. But then again, who's to say the spiral hasn't already started, and Bush is just trying to prevent the inevitable?
Informative blog Cori!
The concept of Procreation is a little difficult for me to accept. There are couples out there that don’t have time to "create their own child." And there are people that do not want to have babies.
I think this topic is quite controversial and depends on individual’s expectations and views from life, which is case by case different.
I also think this is private topic, and there shouldn’t be some one that makes decision for your personal life....
I look forward to see as the concept of marriage evolves!
i don't know much on the topic but it seems to me that prop 957 is just an initiative to get people thinking about the institution of marriage in a more open minded fashion. if the message behind 957 can be injected into peoples' minds maybe we'll all be more accepting of the idea of homosexual marriage. nice blog, i was unaware of this policy.
Very interesting proposed policy. I agree with Jordan in terms of the policy's aims... it seems like a ploy to get people thinking... to stir up these emotions that others have already expressed in their comments. I too had not heard of this, and it seems absolutely ludicrous to think that it could be passed, yet if it takes something this drastic and outlandish to be proposed in order for everyone to have equal rights of marriage (and more) I say keep the arguments coming so people can begin to understand how the homosexual community is impacted by this.
I don't think you can say the logic behind 957 is flawed because it really does not appear to be logic based. I don't see any logic here. How can you penalize people who unable or maybe have no desire to have children.
Thanks for the info!
I agree with Jordan and Ivette. The so-called "logic" that is used behind the proposition is completely ludicrous. Some people are still so closed-minded about the idea of homosexual marriage. But the proposition fights to get these conservatives to see that if they can impose such regulations on the definitions of marriage that excludes homosexuals, than they should be imposed on themselves as well. It may not be the most effective approach to the situation, but it certainly does get you thinking, huh?
So forcing someone to procreate is not as bad as regulating a couple on the number of children they can have over there in China? This guy is way over his head lol.
Post a Comment