Just in case any of my readers feared that the last article indicated a growing animosity toward the GLBT portion of the populace, here you go. A group out of the state of Washington have proposed a measure that would require heterosexual married couples to have a child within three years.

The measure would require couples to prove they can have children to get a marriage license. Couples who do not have children within three years could have their marriages annulled.

All other marriages would be defined as “unrecognized,” making those couples ineligible for marriage benefits.

I’m impressed! See, opponents of same sex marriage have long squawked that homosexuality is inherently wrong because gay couples can’t have children. Now, while that’s not inaccurate (the latter half, I mean), the further implication is that any union of two people that cannot produce a child is inherently wrong. Worse still are those who CHOOSE not to have children.

Oh but there’s more. There always is.

Cheryl Haskins, executive director of Allies for Marriage and Children, said opponents of same-sex marriage want only to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

“Some of those unions produce children and some of them don’t,” she said.

Of course. Now I could point you to the AMC’s website and how they take the ass backwards stance that the Massachusetts court imposed gay marriage instead of perfectly rationally ruling that there was no law that prohibited it, but I’m going to go for a different tact.

The AMC’s website seems to go out of its way to avoid looking like a group of religious advocates. So what possible rationale is there for preventing same sex couples from marrying that doesn’t involve religion? Tradition is a poor excuse, so that just leaves the concept of children. Which brings us right around.

See? I’m not all bad.