FRC Blog is Quite Entertaining
A few days ago, Mark H pointed out the move in Washington State to pass an amendment to force heterosexual couples to have children within 3 years of tying the knot, or to have their marriages annulled. Leave it up to the FRC to come up with a reaction that has to be read to be believed.
For the moment, let's take this group seriously enough to examine the question, "Is marriage solely for the purpose of creation?" My tentative answer: Yes and no. I agree with natural law thinker Robert George, who says, "Here is the core of the traditional understanding: Marriage is a two-in-one-flesh communion of person that is consummated and actualized by acts that are reproductive in type, whether or not they are reproductive in effect..." He adds: "Although not all reproductive-type acts are marital, there can be no marital act that is not reproductive in type."
A number of factors could prevent a married couple from having a child within three years (e.g., what if the child is stillborn?) so it would be unfair to penalize them for something that is beyond their control. Instead, a more reasonable criteria should be established that is based on actions that are solely within their power. For example, all couples who wish to marry--both gay and straight--must be willing and able to engage in "marital acts", acts that are reproductive in type. To paraphrase the WA-DOMA, those couples who cannot or will not engage in marital acts that are reproductive in type should equally be barred from marriage.
The FRC blog seems to regularly provide material in the "you can't make this up" category. I encourage readers who want to get a daily chuckle, to go check it out.