Legislative Proposals Elsewhere

These bills/ballot measures introduced in state legislatures may be a bit ahead of their time, from The Family Law Prof Blog:

Washington Initiative to Require Couples to Have Children

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance acknowledged on its Web site that the initiative was ''absurd'' but hoped the idea prompts ''discussion about the many misguided assumptions'' underlying a state Supreme Court ruling that upheld a ban on same-sex marriage. 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.

The paperwork for the measure was submitted last month. Supporters must gather at least 224,800 signatures by July 6 to put it on the November ballot." A.P., N.Y. Times

Connecticut Ban Smoking if Child Present?

Connecticut legislators have introduced a bill that would ban smoking in cars when a minor is present. This legislation, the brainchild of 9-year-old Justin Kvadas from East Hartford, is ostensibly being written to protect young children from exposure to the alleged dangers of secondhand smoke." By Gary Nolan, N.Y. Times

Comments

[Wendy]

1) They are right - the "have children to be married" law effort IS absurd. Since fewer people are having children, it will only encourage people to avoid marriage entirely, rather than the hoped-for "discussion" they want to generate. Have we all gone mad in our perspectives in this country??

2) I'm of mixed mind on the "no smoking in the car with children" for the following reasons. First of all, smoking is legal, however harmful it is. Secondly, if they stop smoking in a car, the next move is to stop it in the house. If that takes place, we might as well just all roll over and die since we'll have no rights to privacy left in this country. Our property rights are already gone with the highly intelligent Supreme Court decision regarding eminent domain. However, as a child of smoking parents who never was able to escape it at home, in the car, at the bowling alleys or restaurants we would frequent or anywhere else for that matter, I can sympathize with the desire to pull the child away from that. Unfortunately, it's touching on dangerous ground to allow government that much control over our private lives. The only exception I could wholeheartedly agree to would be if the child already has a COPD or other major health issue that smoke would exacerbate - then I'd say yes - force the parent or any other adult to think of the child's current health condition first. But, this continual government intrusion into our personal lives is beginning to rub me raw and, as I see it, runs the risk of such overt actions as video cameras in our homes for monitoring purposes. If you have never read "1984", I suggest you do so immediately. I believe we are far too close to that style of government already.