SAINT PAUL, MN — The lead group pushing to ban gay Minnesotans from marrying announced today that it plans to expand its efforts to protect traditional marriage.
“We don’t hate gays, we just believe traditional marriage is about procreation, something gay couples simply cannot do,” said Homer Fobe, a spokesman for Minnesotans for Our Kind of Marriage (MOKM). “So to prove the 2012 initaitive isn’t about gay bashing, in 2014 we’re also going to push to nullify marriages for heterosexual couples who are not having children.”
Fobe said the group would propose a ballot initiative to amend the Minnesota Constitution to nullify marriages of Minnesota heterosexual couples who reach the age of 44 without bearing any children.
“Procreation is a sacred duty of traditional marriage that childless couples simply are not willing to fulfill,” said Fobe. “We hate the sin, but we love the sinner. Everybody has the right to love who they choose, but nobody has the right to redefine traditional marriage so it no longer includes its traditional purpose, procreation of the species.”
National Center for Health Statistics researchers say the last time they asked whether women were voluntarily childless was 1995, when 6.6 percent of American women fell into that category. The number had increased from 4.9 percent in 1982. Many advocates of traditional marriage feel the number of voluntarily childless women has increased dramatically since 1995.
MOKM indicated it would seek to nullify marriage for all childless couples, not just those who are voluntarily childless. About 18% of women ages 40-44 had no children in 2008, according to the Pew Research Center. In 1976, just 10% of women fell into that category.
“Some claim their infertility is involuntary, that they were “born this way,’” said Fobe. “However, we won’t allow our Constitution to be polluted with that kind of junk science.”
David Foot, an economist at the University of Toronto, has found that the factor most correlated to childlessness is a female’s level of education. The more education women have, the less likely they are to have children. While 16% of females without a high school degree are childless, 25% of females with a bachelor’s degree are childless.
“We can’t lose sight of the cause of this rejection of traditional marriage,” said Fobe. “Something in today’s society is polluting young minds, and we must root it out.”
Note: This post was also featured as a “Best of the Blogs” in Politics in Minnesota’s Morning Report and in MinnPost’s Blog Cabin feature.
So now you’re Andy Borowitz? Homer Fobe. Nice.
Hey, that’s his name. You can’t make this shit up.
I don’t support their new ban, but at least Homer is consistent with his “marriage is about procreation” logic. If you ban it for gays, you probably have to ban it for childless couples too, right?
Hey Moron – No one is pushing a ban on anything.
It is already the law.
Just codifying in the constitution.
Right, because our Constitution should be a dumping ground for laws because they’re just common sense, right?
Ever hear of Apartheid? Those laws were also just common sense for fifty straight years of South African history. By the end, every race so mistrusted and feared everyone else that they weren’t sure how they could live without it. Yet they somehow managed it in spite of the polling. Only the loss of international rugby and soccer ever gave the small voting majority enough incentive to finally vote it down. When they did, they also gave Constitutional equal rights to gays and lesbians. Was that a coincidence?
Re: “It is already the law”
Sam, thanks much for stopping by, and for the term of endearment.
Jim Crow laws were once the legal status quo in parts of America, but brave freedom fighters worked to change them. America is a better place because those folks spoke out, even tough Jim Crow was “already the law.”
Marriage is important. It is so important that we should ban divorces:
Matthew 19:9
And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
Not allow people to marry anyone eats pork.
Leviticus 11:1-47
Not allow anyone to marry whose biological mother and father (or grand mother/father) were not married.
Deuteronomy 23:2
Anyone who has committed a felon should not be allowed to marry:
Jeremiah 13:23
When we have done that we should research the bible and discover that 99% of the writings and words of women were actively excluded in the 4th century and that about 1/3 of the New Testament was created 300 years after the death of Christ. In fact over 1/2 of the book of Paul was made up when written to script.
OMG!!! How dare you not take this seriously?! the fate of the world depends on traditional marriage! I say Death to the people that don’t want to have children!….
/end sarcasm
but seriously… American Religious nuts always make me laugh xD
Great Article! I will pass it on.
It’s because of those nuts that the world sees America as the land of idiots and ignorant people.
I don’t live in the US but we also see a lot of religious crap here, but they don’t go as far as saying that they will nullify marriages for not prorating… in fact, if the church would want married people to procreate, how about donating their richest to them, as raising a kid IS FREAKEN EXPENSIVE!!
Next, you should consider invalidating the marriages of all the old people whose kids have grown up and moved out. They probably aren’t interested (or capable) of procreation, either.
Oh, wait: “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder”
So, if a man leaving his wife except for her adultery is responsible for her committing adultery if she remarries, then if a law nullifies a marriage for ‘failure of issue’ isn’t that law responsible for the adultery of both the former husband and wife? So if it is adultery to sleep with your former spouse, from whom you were involuntarily divorced, why not sleep around? What is the difference? And the commandment to Adam and Eve was ‘to be fruitful and multiply’ so having two children is simply replacement, not multiplication, ergo, less than three children means a marriage must be nullified, right? What about a widow past the age of child bearing with children who marries a childless man? Would that marriage even be legal? The entire concept is ludicrous.