If you don't have a child 3 years the state will anull your marriage
By mfpsassy
@mfpsassy (2827)
United States
February 6, 2007 12:40am CST
There is a group in Washington State that want to put an measure on the ballot that states if you do not have a child within three years of being married your marriage will be anulled. Anyone else think that this is a bunch of bull****!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
6 responses
@cjthedog64 (1552)
• United States
6 Feb 07
If that gets on the ballot - which it won't - it would never go anywhere. Nobody can make you have a baby. They'd be stupid to try it! There's too many idiots who have kids already. They want to make more welfare cases?
2 people like this
@MommieMoney (102)
• United States
6 Feb 07
I'm not even sure anyone would be stupid enough to attempt this. I'll eat my words if I ever see proof.
1 person likes this
@MommieMoney (102)
• United States
6 Feb 07
Can you please post some proof of this before we all get worked up over it?
1 person likes this
@MommieMoney (102)
• United States
6 Feb 07
Well, I don't think I watched the same 6:30 news as you haha. Can you please find a link for it somewhere.
1 person likes this
@mfpsassy (2827)
• United States
6 Feb 07
Okay I found it:
Initiative 957
"If passed by Washington voters, the Marriage Initiative would:
add the phrase " who are capable having children with one another" to the definition of marriage;
require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;
require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as "unrecognized;"
establish a process for filling proof of procreation; and
make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits."
just do a search for Procreation Initiative or look up Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance here you can read the intiative in it's entirerty like the section that reads
"Marriages in the following casees are prohibited:
(d)When the parties are unable together fo any reason"
This should get people worked up things like this is how our rights get tromped on
@deedles88 (297)
• Australia
6 Feb 07
That is one of the most stupid things I think I have ever heard! The government has no right to do that, no right at all. Just because you dont have a child, within 3 years or not, doesnt mean that you are worthy enough to be married. What about the people who CANT have kids? What about the people who DONT want kids? The Government has no right. They should be working out ways to stop some people from constantly have kids. Some families out there keep having kids, they give birth and within 3 months, they are pregnant again. They do it so they can get the money, which they dont use on raising the kids. They should work out a way to stop people from abusing the system like that, not stopping people from living a child free life.
1 person likes this
@mfpsassy (2827)
• United States
7 Feb 07
Those are some of the questions my husband and I had. We are a fairly good example he's pretty sure he can't have kids due to an accident when he was a kid or else he's just really lucky I had my tubes tied a couple of months after we started dating. So where does that leave us? According to them if you have benn married for a while you must prove that you have procreated as husband and wife within 18 months of the law passing.
@marief2rnurse (2704)
• United States
6 Feb 07
Whoever thought of that is not even in their right mind! Not all marriages are for having children. Some couples want to wait as well. Having kids is not the government's business. It's not like they will pay for all the expenses and babysitting!
1 person likes this
@bethmt (419)
• United States
6 Feb 07
I'm appalled by this and yet I'm not surprised either. Every so often you see an extremist group try to put a bizarre measure on the ballot. This one is not only terrible it makes no sense. I mean even if a couple wanted to have children, sometimes they find out that they can't. And not all married couples want to have children.
I read through all the information and it just boggles the mind in how strange it is. I really doubt it would ever get on to the ballot but stranger things have happened. It's disturbing how some groups will try to force their beliefs on others.
@mfpsassy (2827)
• United States
7 Feb 07
I thought it was absolutely crazy when I heard it and after reading it and the newspaper it is totally insane. Why in the world do they think doing that is going to help their cause . Sure it will make people want to change the wording of the law but definitly not to help them if anything to out cast them more.
@bicklelady (1404)
• United States
7 Feb 07
I have a mother-in-law that lives in Washington State and she has never heard of such a thing. What if the woman or man cant have children. That is the craziest thing I have ever heard. What if you cant afford them. Is the state going to support them just so you can stay married? If I was you, I would get up a patition.
1 person likes this
@mfpsassy (2827)
• United States
7 Feb 07
It seems the media just got a hold of this yesterday since it was on the news last night and in the paper today. As for a petition I'm sure someone has beat me to it. This initiative was submited to the Secretary of State on January 9, and assigned an initiative number on January 22, 2007. Tell her to look up Procreation Initiative.
1 person likes this
@bicklelady (1404)
• United States
8 Feb 07
Well I wish yall the best of luck. I guess I will just stay here in the south.
1 person likes this
