Children are purpose of marriage, judge told

[question everything]

Children are purpose of marriage, judge told

Conservatives argue against gay unions

By Kim Curtis
ASSOCIATED PRESS

December 24, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO – Advocates for traditional marriage tried to convince a judge yesterday that California's marriage laws don't discriminate against gays and lesbians because the institution's purpose is to produce children.

"They can't perform the basic functions of marriage; therefore it's not discrimination," said Rena Lindevaldsen of the Campaign for California Families during the second day of arguments in a high-profile case seeking to overturn the state's ban on same-sex marriage.

Sherri Sokeland Kaiser, arguing on behalf of the city of San Francisco, called Lindevaldsen's claims "extraordinary" and cited the state's willingness to allow other people to marry who probably will never have children, such as women over 50 and convicted criminals sentenced to life in prison.

(snip)

The state's interest in raising children has formed the core of the arguments made by conservative groups wanting to maintain the state's existing marriage laws. On Wednesday, attorney Glen Lavy of the Alliance Defense Fund said the state should seek to promote families that include a mother and father as the ideal environment for raising children.

More..

Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041224/news_1n24gaywed.html

[TahitiNut]

1. Fine. Then ban any marriage that's not producing children.

What a bunch of fucktards! :grr:

[leesa]

24. My point to Fundies all the time...so you and your post-menopausal

wife are, of course, no longer having sex.

[donheld]

29. I propose a law

Forbiding women over 45 from marrying. They can no longer bear children so there's no point in their being married. Of course anyone else who can't create children must be forbidden to marry also.

[SemperEadem]

38. a 45 yr old woman can most certainly still bear children

as long as she hasn't gone through menopause, she can still get pregnant.

Gawd!

[donheld]

39. Don't get excited

i only made the post in jest.

[Maat]

59. Uh-oh .... my husband and I practiced ...

"DELIBERATE CHILDNESSNESS" for over 20 years (until we 'dopted Her Royal Highness).


I think we are in BIG TROUBLE!!!!

The State's not going to dishonor my marriage at this late date, are they? Then we'll have to back to ... LIVING IN SIN!!

(Just joking .. this 46-year-old married mom, proud liberal and still-living-in-the-70s, thinks their whole argument amounts to the ESSENCE OF STUPIDITY!)

To all my Gay and Lesbian Friends on DU - we'll get same-sex marriage legalized throughout the U.S. soon! Hang in there! Equality! And Peace on Earth!

[tavalon]

68. Actually, how about if we stop mixing church and state

and have the state get out of sanctioning what should be a religious ceremony.

Am I the only person in the world who has noticed this horrible pairing.

As a heterosexual polyamorous woman, I will not allow the government to sanction the union or unions I choose.

[The Zanti Regent]

76. Where are Michael Savage's kids?

and what about Rush's kids?

[TwentyFive]

78. Rush has 3 wives and zero kids. What about that?

He's against same-sex marriage, but why? If anybody is 'devaluing' marriage, it is him.

[ticapnews]

82. I think it's for the best that they NOT spawn (eom)

:evilgrin:

[booksenkatz]

2. Gee, I guess my infertile cousin & his infertile wife should get a divorce

They were so happy to find each other for the companionship, even though neither could have children. Guess their marriage isn't real, eh? Oh, wait, they've been together for 24 years. Gosh, there must be something there, even without the children!
:o

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Oh dear

then that means my husband and I haven't been married for 15 years, because we intentionally chose not to have children. Gee, I wonder what these idiots think about people who marry in their golden years? They should be denied this?

[genieroze]

100. You heathen. lol eom

[Demeter]

4. Oh Good! No More Problems Adopting For Same Sex Households!

(Sometimes the irony is killing me)

[madrchsod]

5. 1984-

fiction becomes reality

[question everything]

9. And sad. Some of us marry for the companionship, first

but I guess for those who are continually busy making and raising children, that companionship is not important, or incidental. How sad they must be once the kids leave home.

[hlthe2b]

6. So, post-menopausal women can not get married? Infertile couples?

Damn these bigots...

[Solly Mack]

7. Guess my marriage is in default.

lolol

[marew]

8. Gosh, I'm biologically too old to have kids...

Does that mean my fiance and I (we're heterosexual) can't get married?

[buddysmellgood]

I'm afraid so. You have outlived your usefulness to the State. Please

report to the recycling/protein production facility immediately.

[question everything]

22. LOL n/t

[foo_bar]

37. tofurkey is made of people!

[Kber]

83. Ha Ha!

[The Doctor.]

55. What post number is that?

Actually, the fundamentalists want laws that FORCE people to marry and produce children.

I saw the article - I'll see if I can find it.


On edit - Found it;

http://www.gender-news.com/other.php?id=23

[Maat]

60. Oh, thanks for the link!

I remember this one! Good ol' Mohler. Proud Southern Baptist Convention leader and Fundie Extraordinaire.

And to think, my nutball relatives follow the teachings of this bonehead!

Editied to add: Oh, this is where I got the great term, 'deliberate childlessness.' Laughed so hard my hiney fell off (that was the earthquake you guys felt).

[VegasWolf]

10. just spreading their christian values around. n/t

[delphine]

11. Yeah,and I can't

get married again because I've already raised a son and I'm middle aged. So may as well just give up the idea entirely.

Hey, wait a minute!!

I thought love was about marriage and commitment and devotion and caring for one another!! I can still do that!!!

Come to think of it, so can two men or two women, can't they!!

So everyone can show love and devotion and care for the person they choose to love!!! Hurray!!

So what's the problem again?


Man I'm starting to love the word "fucktards". Very applicable to these intolerant moralistic losers.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

12. A purpose, not THE purpose

A house provides shelter from weather, but it also provides an atmosphere to create a home.

Few things have just one purpose.

[RetroLounge]

49. Bullshit. You don't need to be married to have kids.

and you can create a home in an apartment.

RL

[AliciaKeyedUp]

81. But marriage creates a structure to protect them

So it IS one of the purposes of marriage.

Having them on your own without marriage makes it harder on the kids.

[CO Liberal]

85. It's One Purpose - ONE!!!!

Not "the" purpose.

And while single parenthood may be more challenging, it's done every day. And my kids, who were raised by my lesbian ex-wife and a string of her partners, turned out to be fine, productive citizens.

All those so-called "family values" groups are full of shit, IMHO.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

97. I said that

You and I are in agreement on that point. One purpose.

[Behind the Aegis]

90. This means...

...that you support gay marriage?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

98. It doesn't mean that, but I do

I support marriage of any two consenting adults.

[FizzFuzz]

95. sorry, that is too nuanced.

You are engaging in nuanced thinking. Believers have been notified.

(so, you may soon hear a strange droning sound in the night, coming closer....ever closer....You may notice a glow of torchlight approaching over the hills....and as the sounds of voices and marching become louder you peek out your window and see a seething throng of modestly dressed ladies and gentlemen gathered below your window, shaking their burning crosses and chanting in unison: "TOO NU-ANCED! TOO NU_ANCED!!")

[DELUSIONAL]

13. Guess my husband's and my marriage should be invalidated?

We opted out of having children.

And my fundie relatives had a fit!

They do believe that the purpose of marriage is to have children -- no other reason.

Which shows how damned ignorant these religious ding a lings are.

Marriage (civil records) exists because of property rights -- dowagers rights -- rights to inherit. Church records of marriages are another matter -- depends on the church and the time period. These are two distinct classes of records -- civil and religious.

Genealogists can often find records of marriages -- because of inheritance laws -- but birth records (Primary records) of the couple's children don't exist.

Any good lawyer or Genealogist can knock these idiots on their collective asses.

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

89. Mine, too. We've been married almost 8 years and have no kids.

This is by choice (for now at least). They probably also think a woman can't be 'whole' unless she's given birth, and she must be barefoot and pregnant.

I guess for those couples who desperately want children and can't have them, well, they're just plain out of luck, huh (in the ignorant points of view as those conservative jackasses)? This makes me really angry.

[0007]

14. How do they do this with a straight face?

"The proponents are asking the court to destroy the cornerstone of a large building without considering the ramifications," Lavy said. "If your honor finds the marriage laws must be available for same-sex couples, you will be likely creating a constitutional right to incestuous and group marriage."

Yesterday, he said gays and lesbians aren't discriminated against because many end up marrying people of the opposite gender.

"There is no suspect class of couples," Lavy said. "Not all persons of gay or lesbian orientation are excluded from marriage. . . . Some of those people do marry."

[dkofos]

43. It's simple,

they are fucking stupid.

[IndianaGreen]

15. By that logic, women past menopause cannot marry

According to fundamentalist Christianity, women are baby factories that must remain obedient to their husbands.

How is that different from fundamentalist Islam?

[question everything]

19. Ah, but old men can, with Viagra

That ought to teach those women to stay bare foot and pregnant in the kitchen, less they will be tossed aside once the baby machine is put to pasture.

Oh, forgot. They already do this, toss the old and marry a trophy wife: Newt (twice), Reagan, Pete Wilson, Bob Dole, Phil Gramm, not to mention all the wealthy Wall Steet big GOP donors.

[GinaMaria]

88. or post menopausal women should be forced into divorce

by the same logic. Or are marriages between heterosexuals who could at one time reproduce protected? This is just nuts. These people need to focus on what's going on in their own bedrooms not someone else's.

[MADem]

16. What a COMPLETELY UNCONSERVATIVE argument!!!

The STATE's INTEREST in raising children is the core of their argument? That's just a hop, skip and a jump away from sending your kids to the state reformatory, where they are taught to inform against their parents for any unacceptable political thought, word or deed...Chairman Mao would be thrilled! Stalin would be dancing with glee! The state is taking over your reproductive organs...before too long, they'll tell you how many you can or must have, and when! And they'll punish you if you don't conform!!

This "conservative movement" is ready to jump the old shark. That ain't conservatism, not by any stretch.

But in weecowboyland, left is right, up is down, and wrong is most decidedly right....

What a bunch of nuts!

[Seldona]

17. How do these people get elected?

Does that mean that my wife's Aunt should abandon her husband, who has been dying of MS for the last 5 years?

Does that mean there is no love between them while she holds his hands and cries while he shrieks in pain, simply because they CHOSE not to have children.

People like this scare the hell out of me. And I do not scare easily.

They really do want lifelong partners withheld from comforting their partners in their time of dying. Whatever, as long as it fits in with their narrow view of what is acceptable between consenting adults.

I hate to say it, but Canada is looking better and better.

At least they have an interest in their government acknowledging the rights of ALL their citizens.

We are heading in the opposite direction here.

Utterly sad.

[Agnomen]

18. How far are we from "Handmaiden's Tale" ????

Ok, it's paranoid fantasy, but I see people being forced to reproduce somewhere down this road.

And another thing:

"The state's interest in raising children has formed the core of the arguments made by conservative groups wanting to maintain the state's existing marriage laws. On Wednesday, attorney Glen Lavy of the Alliance Defense Fund said the state should seek to promote families that include a mother and father as the ideal environment for raising children."

To be consistent, shouldn't the conservatives be concentrating on oulawing divorce?

[BR_Parkway]

27. Wouldn't it be hilarious, if some judge hearing all this crap, decided

that divorce laws were invalid? I can just see the bulging red faces over that one..

[gordianot]

34. The Theocracy is almost here now. Good point.

[tsuki]

36. Or any procedure that will deny reproduction. Watch out

doctors. Another fundie cause on the way.

[nashville_brook]

62. it's Handmaid's Tale (and I agree, functionally)

the author, Margaret Atwood was on Studio 360 last week talking about this. The dystopic governmental system that is arising will continue to use women's reproductive issues as a wedge and, then they will eventually take advantage of our weakened political stake to impose draconian reproductive restrictions which will provide human fodder in the form of cheap labor and a bumper crop of (white) babies for adoption. it's a win/win for fat-capitalists.

it's totally in their interest that there be way too many children to take care of. it keeps the uppity women down and keeps the trains running on time (cheaply).

[buddysmellgood]

20. Man are they ever grasping. Even if one bought into that bullshit

argument, it doesn't address adoption.

[StuckinKS]

50. Exactly!

My partner and I adopted three children out of the foster care system (abused and neglected by their heterosexual birth parents who did have the right to marry) and my children deserve the same protections given every other child. And my partner and I deserve the same rights as every heterosexual couple who marries, whether for procreation or love.

Now, they can call "it" whatever they like. But if the legal term isn't marriage for me, then it shouldn't be marriage for any couples.

[buddysmellgood]

63. Amen

[daleo]

21. I was best man at a wedding 2 years ago - bride and groom in their 40s

There was no longer any practical possibility of having children - does this mean it wasn't a real marriage according to these people?

Although, the wedding was in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, so I suppose the point is moot.

[proud2BlibKansan]

23. I went to a wedding years ago

The bride and groom were in their 80s. They lived in a retirement home together. A lot of the residents of the home didn't come to the wedding because this old couple had been shacking up before they got married.

[daleo]

25. That's astounding

I guess some people never mellow.

[reprobate]

87. I once answered a disturbance call about a 70 year old woman....

....who was threatening her 89 year old mother for having an afair with her 92 year old male friend.

AFter calming everyone down and privately congratulating the old man, my partner and I had a good chuckle over it. It soon became a well known joke around the sherrif's office.

[HEyHEY]

26. IT never fucking ends does it?

[Catbird]

28. Reasons for marriage

At least children are a better reason for marriage than name changes.

I was once asked by a registrar why I had bothered to get married since I was not using the same surname as my husband; apparently if a woman was not going to change her name at marriage, there was little reason to marry. The registrar eventually refused to register me to vote since I was not using my husband's surname. (If she had know that I was infertile, would she have allowed me to vote since I wasn't in a legitimate marriage and could therefore use a different surname??) I didn't hang around to fight that particular battle; we moved. This was a while ago; I hope it's not still happening.

As a society and as individuals, we need to make sure that all of our children have as many responsible and loving adults helping raise them as possible. We certainly don't need to insist that these adults be limited to a couple joined in traditional matrimony.

[question everything]

47. Welcome to DU

and will be looking forward for more posts like that with so much insight.

I DO hope that this happened many years ago.

:toast:

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

30. Does your marriage automatically become invalid

if you don't produce children within a certain period of time? How long should that time be? Can you have a couple of years to get settled, or would they start the annulment proceedings right away if there's no baby nine months after the wedding?

[question everything]

48. And... do you get a "reprieve" if you adopt

preferably a frozen blastula that resulted from IVF? We don't want it "killed" for stem cells production

[kineneb]

70. Guess we don't fit their standard.

Married 23 years and have no kids. What about couples who discover genetic problems...after they get married? And those who discover they just weren't cut out to be parents? Must they divorce and stay single?

This whole Marriage argument is sooo goofy. And I notice that the ones whining loudest are often the folks with serious relationship problems (Newt and wife #??).

[roguevalley]

31. Amazing. St. Augustine and the other misanthropes must be

smiling up from hell.

[gordianot]

32. Thanks for the article.

These people are going to continue to stir sentiment and prejudice to create a wedge issue wherever whenever they can. Frankly I am sick of this.

You know though if the purpose of this argurment is to ban homosexual unions this is a non working arguement.

[George_S]

33. Eugenic Laws Against Race Mixing

Eugenic Laws Against Race Mixing

Paul Lombardo, University of Virginia

Laws forbidding marriage between people of different races were common in America from the Colonial period through the middle of the 20th century. By 1915, twenty-eight states made marriages between "Negroes and white persons" invalid; six states included this prohibition in their constitutions.

In the early 1900's, the eugenics movement supplied a new set of arguments to support existing restrictions on interracial marriage. These arguments incorporated a "scientific" brand of racism, emphasizing the supposed biological dangers of mixing the races – also known as miscegenation. Influential writers like Madison Grant, a leading eugenicist, warned that racial mixing was "a social and racial crime." He said that acceptance of racial intermarriage would lead America toward "racial suicide" and the eventual disappearance of white civilization.

According to Grant, the mixture of "higher racial types," such as Nordic whites, with other "lower" races would inevitably result in the decline of the higher race. In his immensely popular book The Passing of the Great Race (1916) Grant cautioned: "The cross between a white man and an Indian is an Indian; the cross between a white man and a negro is a negro… When it becomes thoroughly understood that the children of mixed marriages between contrasted races belong to the lower type, the importance of transmitting in unimpaired purity the blood inheritance of ages will be appreciated at its full value."

Grant's proclamations on the perils of race mixing mirrored warnings by Charles Davenport and Harry Laughlin, leaders of the American eugenic bureaucracy at the Eugenics Record Office. In turn, American political leaders like Vice President Calvin Coolidge repeated similar sentiments as scientific fact. Said Coolidge: "Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend."

http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay7text.html

Their big beef with Planned Parenthood was that white women weren't doing their duty and popping out white babies.

[George_S]

56. Brooks cited defender of eugenicists

NY Times' Brooks cited defender of eugenicists in touting new political constituency

In his December 7 New York Times op-ed column, David Brooks cited research by Steve Sailer -- a conservative who has written in defense of a group promoting eugenics -- in touting a purported "spiritual" movement of people he called "natalists." Brooks defined this demographic as people who are procreating more than other Americans, moving in droves to "clean, orderly and affordable places where they can nurture children from bad influences," and leaving "what they perceive as disorder, vulgarity and danger." They account for population increases in the fastest-growing regions in the country, Brooks suggested, and politicians will take notice. But his thesis is not supported by the data -- unless one limits the analysis, as Brooks apparently did, to one demographic, procreative white people.

In purporting to identify a significant political trend in states with the fastest growing populations, Brooks cited Sailer's findings: "As Steve Sailer pointed out in The American Conservative, George Bush carried the 19 states with the highest white fertility rates, and 25 of the top 26. John Kerry won the 16 states with the lowest rates." But aside from Sailer's reference to "white fertility rates," there is no other mention of race in Brooks's column. In fact, Brooks's thesis falls apart when broader data is considered.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200412080001

[The Doctor.]

57. Too bad for them Genetic Science says otherwise...

The more diverse the genetic backrounds of the parents, the more genetic advantages the offspring will have.

People evolve and improve through gene pool diversity.

Here's some fun too:

"According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Joe and Deb Schum of Atlanta aren't worried about baby proofing their house or buying a car seat. As a matter of fact, the couple doesn't ever intend to have children and they are proud of their childlessness. According to the newspaper's report, "the Schums are part of a growing number of couples across the country for whom kids don't factor in the marriage equation.""

<snip>

"Christians must recognize that this rebellion against parenthood represents nothing less than an absolute revolt against God's design. The Scripture points to barrenness as a great curse and children as a divine gift. The Psalmist declared: "Behold, children are a gift of the Lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are the children of one's youth. How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them; they will not be ashamed when they speak with their enemies in the gate."

Morally speaking, the epidemic in this regard has nothing to do with those married couples who desire children but are for any reason unable to have them, but in those who are fully capable of having children but reject this intrusion in their lifestyle."

http://www.gender-news.com/other.php?id=23

[George_S]

77. This same war...

... has raged since the Industrial Revolution in the early 1900s. It was quite for a while but the battle is on again and the eugenicists never gave up.

Everything that happened then is happening now, from the rage against sin (TV, porn and Hollywood today), to the effort to get mental health data on citizens (Bush's new Mental Health Freedom Act), to the fight between pro-choice and pro-big-family (white family that is), to the Sterilization of the unfit (there are programs doing that now), to castration of offenders, to large scale segregation of the unfit to the point of financially busting the state's budgets (the reason for reverting to sterilization back then in the same way the debate is about 3-Strikes costing too much), to control of government and the people by corporations, to Prohibition (both alcohol and drugs), to the subversive laws that slowly chip away at the bill of rights.

It's bum science, but it's MORAL.

[davhill]

35. Marriage License is nothing but a scrap of paper

It's not a sex license analogous to a drivers license. The only reason for the government to get involved in the sexual relationship of anyone is to make sure that any children that result are cared for. In that sense the judge is correct.

[rocketdem]

73. Wrong.

Children born out of wedlock are just as much the legal responsibility of the parents as the children born in wedlock.

So far as the state is concerned, marriage should represent nothing more than a legal and financial partnership. Period. The end.

Beyond that, whatever religious values are placed above and beyond that are exclusively dependent upon the participants.

[NYC Liberal]

40. Mary and Joseph married,

and they didn't have any kids together. Might as well declare their marriage invalid, right?

[Vidar]

41. This isn't Christianity, but some negativistic fertility cult

[RetroLounge]

51. It may not *be* christianity

but it is the face of christianity that they keep putting out there.

RL

[Vidar]

52. Agreed totally. But their only biblical reference for this is " be

fruitful and multiply" which doesn't add up to this sort of crap.

[RetroLounge]

71. Agreed

but lots of stuff they put out there don't add up.

:hi:

RL

[despairing optimist]

42. Okay, then what's the purpose of divorce?

Ban all divorces, or better yet, prosecute all adulterers according to biblical law. Get the stones ready.

[dkofos]

45. I'm ready

I love getting stoned

[AlCzervik]

44. OK then, no more trips to the fertility clinics for any of their wives

because if they need help to conceive then they weren't meant to have children in the first place and then they MUST divorce!! I'm so fing sick of these assholes!!!!

[DS1]

46. Without children we can't overwhelm the teeming masses of Muslims in the

upcoming war of souls :eyes:

/Fundie

[rocketdem]

74. A Xian friend of mine recently told me this.

His biggest problem with gay marriage and gays in general is the simple fact that that they're not producing babies as fast as possible. He's convinced that the strength of Xian America will be based on our ability to outpace the baby production of the pagans. He's just added his fourth child. Since my wife and I have none (and plan to none), he considers me to be something of a traitor to the American cause.

[mbperrin]

53. Please find one word in the bible that says marriage is for

producing children.

Yeah, didn't think so.

(How about Solomon and all them concubines, though? That's a BUNCH of kids!)

[noamnety]

54. Didn't y'all say these vows?

I promise to love, honor and cherish make babies, til death do us part.

[mbperrin]

69. KNEW I shoulda paid more attention!

LOL

[doubleplusgood]

58. so, shouldn't folks have babies out of wedlock

...to PROVE that they are fertile & therefore properly suited (and "blessed") for marriage ?

[Piperay]

61. I'll never marry then

I am passed my prime and to old to give birth, guess I am doomed to spend the rest of my life without companionship. :cry: :eyes:

[JerseygirlCT]

64. And what about the many people -- straight or gay -- who choose to

become parents in ways other than biologically? That's certainly an option for either a gay or straight couple, isn't it?

Silly, silly argument, but it just goes to show how very little they have.

[Princess Turandot]

65. I'd be encouraged by this..the article was short and didn't say if..

they made other major arguments, but if that was their primary legal argument, I can't see a judge agreeing with them, because of all of the examples of heterosexual marriages which do not/cannot produce children, not to mention children 'born out of wedlock'.

[Gman]

66. Abraham and his wife could not bear children

so he had an affair with one of his slaves who produced a child. God had to intervene for Abraham's "barren" wife to have a child. So then why were they married in the first place?

[Jack Rabbit]

67. Since MaryBear and I got married earlier this week . . .

. . . and we're both in our fifties and too old to have any more children, will Ms. Lindevaldsen go to court to invalidate our marriage?

Just wondering.

[Sara Beverley]

72. Government of the fetus and for the fetus.

What next?

[Mabel Dodge]

75. With logic like this we’re doomed.

My husband and I are childless by choice. Our gift to this over crowded planet, was not to produce more children. The world doesn’t need any more people; there are more than it can handle now. It's incredible in this day and age, there are people advocating marriage for the sake of procreation. Carelessly bringing children into this world because of outdated traditions is wrong and will eventually destroy us. As a society we should be urging young people to enter into parenthood responsibly and with caution. It would also be wise to celebrate childless unions instead of disparaging them.

[NYC]

79. Adulthood means marriage, and marriage means children.

The church should insist that the biblical formula calls for adulthood to mean marriage and marriage to mean children.

http://www.gender-news.com/other.php?id=23

[apple_ridge]

80. I never thought that I had this kind of

potential!

"Parenthood is not a hobby, but represents one of the most crucial opportunities for the making of saints found in this life."

[designforce]

84. What a load of crap

Guess I am in deep stuff as my wife of 23 years and I never had any children. So if a couple chooses not to have children or can't, does that mean they cannot be married?

So, the American Taliban rear their ugly heads once again....

[thinkingwoman]

86. with ya on this one

My husband and I (my second marriage, his first) did not produce any children of our own. Instead, we focused on raising two children from my first marriage whose father moved 4 states away and emotionally abandoned them after the divorce (which happened because he became physically abusive to me and one of my children).

My husband is the only "Dad" they've ever known and loves them as if they carried his DNA.

Guess our marriage is invalid too.

[Orsino]

91. So how many children...

...should we require of a couple before we allow them to marry?

[ticapnews]

103. None, because sex before marriage is Bad (tm)

What we need is a contract between prospective couples and the Church or Government (as if there will be a difference in a few years) to produce at least two kids (preferably one boy and one girl) within four or five years of marriage. Of course, we'll need a whole new bureaucracy to keep track of these marriages. And we should set up requirements for different parents, based on intelligence, race, religion and income level - after all we don't really want a bunch of poor, uneducated black kids or a new generation of Muslim children who might grow up to be terrorists.

(/sarcasm)
:(

[neuvocat]

92. Fine. Let gay couples adopt children then.

[Bouncy Ball]

93. HOW ridiculous.

I'd like to see this judge say that directly to the faces of those couples who either CANNOT or CHOOSE NOT to have children.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[Bouncy Ball]

94. Oh and geez

I guess the marriage between my uncle and his new wife should be invalidated, eh? He is 51 and she is 55. No chance of kids from THEM! And neither of them ever had any.

[FizzFuzz]

96. Some input from our friends, the NAZIS

These quotes taken from "Women In Germany" http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERwomen.htm

6) Nazi Racial Policy Bureau, ten rules to be observed when considering a marriage partner (1934)
1) Remember you are a German.
2) Remain pure in mind and spirit!
3) Keep your body pure!
4) If hereditarily fit, do not remain single!
10) Hope for as many children as possible! Your duty is to produce at least four offspring in order to ensure the future of the national stock.

****************

When Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933 he appointed Gertrud Scholtz-Klink as Reich Women's Leader and head of the Nazi Women's League. A good orator, Scholtz-Klink's main task was to promote male superiority and the importance of child-bearing. In one speech she pointed out that "the mission of woman is to minister in the home and in her profession to the needs of life from the first to last moment of man's existence."

****************

8) Martha Dodd, My Years in Germany (1939)

Young girls from the age of ten onward were taken into organizations where they were taught only two things: to take care of their bodies so they could bear as many children as the state needed and to be loyal to National Socialism....Birth control information is frowned on and practically forbidden.

Women have been deprived for all rights except that of childbirth and hard labour. They are not permitted to participate in political life - in fact Hitler's plans eventually include the deprivation of the vote; they are refused opportunities of education and self-expression; careers and professions are closed to them.

****************

4) Isle McKee was a member of the German Girls' League, later recalled her experiences in her autobiography.

We were told from a very early age to prepare for motherhood, as the mother in the eyes of our beloved leader and the National Socialist Government was the most important person in the nation. We were Germany's hope in the future, and it was our duty to breed and rear the new generation of sons and daughter.

****************

3) Adolf Hitler, speech (September, 1935)

The so-called granting of equal rights to women, which Marxism demands, in reality does not grant equal rights but constitutes a deprivation of rights, since it draws the woman into an area in which she will necessarily be inferior. The woman has her own battlefield. With every child that she brings into the world, she fights her battle for the nation.

[genieroze]

99. So sterile people should be banned as well. eom

[genieroze]

101. Watch this movie

I told my husband that this is what these nuts are trying to do.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/6301930789/104-0961198-9151948?v=glance

[Massacure]

102. All marriages should be voided after one year without bearing a child.

</end sarcasm>