Initiative 957: Defense of Marriage?

The Defense of Marriage Initiative that may be on the ballot in November of 2007 for Washington State voters really isn't a defense of marriage, first of all. This Initiative that is controversial beyond belief most definitely will not make it on the ballot in November; however, if it does, the people of Washington will decide whether or not they want to uphold the true values of the institution of marriage.

This Initiative, endorsed by Gary Gadow, would make procreation a requirement in a marriage union for the people in the state of Washington. It would require that not only would married couples have to file proof of procreation within 3 years of their marriage ceremony, but would require them to furnish proof that they are able to have children before even saying "I do." Hence, if they are not able to have children, for one reason or another, they are not allowed to get married, therefore, will not receive any marriage benefits. Furthermore, if the married couple does not furnish proof of either of those issues before their marriage and within 3 years of their ceremony, their marriage will be considered completely null and void. Needless to say, Initiative 957 makes it a "criminal act" for those couples who have not shown proof of procreation within 3 years to still receive marriage benefits.

There are many questions to this Initiative that Gary Gadow should have thought about even before trying to organize the whole ordeal. First, how would a couple furnish proof that they are able to have children before they are married? Would they do sperm and egg tests? If so, who would pay for it? Certainly it seems as if the State would be responsible for paying for the couples since it would be a requirement of the State. Second, what about the cases of miscarriage? If a couple is trying without success to have a child within 3 years and fails the first couple of times, then will their marriage be declared null and void? Furthermore, consider this scenario: a couple decides to have a child only for the sake of their marriage. How is that fair to the child, assuming it would receive very little attention and love from the two people? What would happen to the child? Yes, the couple could put it up for adoption, but that would certainly create an orphanage problem for Washington.

Although those are some compelling questions laid out before Gary Gadow, there is a bigger issue at stake here. Why should the government dictate what a married couple should do? How is it fair that there should be certain "requirements" for married people? Many marriages start out marrying for love, and children come along some years down the road. This initiative would make that impossible. As soon as the government steps in and tells you what you can and cannot do inside your own marriage, where do the demands stop? Instead of only making procreation a requirement of marriage within 3 years, what about every 3 years after that? Will the couple be required to renew their marriage procreation proof every 3 years? That seems pretty logical, doesn't it?

Gary Gadow and the supporters of Initiative 957 should take a step back and see what marriage really is all about. Just because gays and lesbians are not allowed to have an official marriage ceremony in most states within the United States of America does not mean that they should try to impose limitations for heterosexual couples. That is a whole other argument in itself and will be saved for yet another day. Lastly, a message to Washington voters: if you value the marriage ceremony even an ounce and respect and value the family unit, you must do whatever it takes to make sure that Initiative 957 does not get a spot on the November 2007 ballot, let alone pass as legislation!