Married Couples Must Have Kids

I guess turn about is fair play....

Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids

But I think there needs to be a distinction between couples how should be able to have children, but cannot (or cannot safely) due to an illness, injury, or medical condition, and couples who can never have children together no matter how healthy they both are.

But I agree that, if society wants to, couples that merely choose not to have any children, could get less of the benefits of "marriage". In these cases I think that these benefits should be tied to "families" not "marriages" or "couples". But some of that is already true.

1 - Only people with kids get per child deductions
2 - Some insurance charge only a "single" or "family" rate where childless couples pay the same as large families but get less benefits.
3 - All tax payers pay for public schools but only people with children get any direct benefit from it.
4- Kids can eat free at some restaurants, but other family members or relationships are not eligible.

I'm sure there are more...


UPDATE:
Initiative ties marriage, procreation
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2003558717_nokids06m.html

Gadow said the alliance would introduce two other proposals over the next few years, one that would prohibit divorce or separation by married people who have children together and another that would make having a child together the equivalent of marriage.

Now those ARE good ideas....

But how can you have a "Family" without children? I seriously don't think any type of "couple" is the same as a "family"... not if you want words to actually have an objective meaning beyond what people "want it to mean".

The gay-rights organization Equal Rights Washington also won't endorse it, pointing out that families come in all forms, some of which don't include children.