Childfree in the Military
Nothing more pleasing to me than to hear from new Purple WomenTM on front page posts. If you like what you see here, tell a childfree girlfriend!
My duties as blog owner/author have always include monitoring and responding to comments. That used to be exclusively on the main page, but now that our site is more searchable, I am finding that new visitors are exploring more, and a comment can appear anywhere in our voluminous postings. This is kinda fun for me. Occasionally, I will elevate a comment, or a portion of one, to the front page.
This week, I fielded a new comment on The Question. It represents the first time we have heard from a childfree, married member of a military family, specifically the Royal Air Force.
I am 31 years old, married for 9 years in August this year. You wouldn't believe the number of people that have asked me WHY we got married if we weren't planning to have any kids, much less straight away after the wedding.She has probably not heard of the ridiculous Initiative 957 in Washington State, which would force couples who want to marry to prove that they are able to have kids together before they can get a marriage certificate. Really just a knee-jerk reaction to deny gays the right to marry, the intentionally childfree heteros are just lumped in I guess. Not stellar legislation.
I always say that we got married because it meant the RAF would have to provide us with a house (which is true) as my husband is a technician, and has been since 1994. The reaction to that sort of materialistic response is just outstanding, as people think that I really mean it!
Did they ever get enough signatures to bring it to the ballot? I will report back later this week.
Flickr photo by MatthewBradley (cc) FYI, the copyright holder insists these are all women in the photo.
2 comments:
Hi Teri,
Just FYI, Initiative 957 is a reverse protest.
That is, the sponsors are supporters of gay marriage rights. They're trying to respond to the "marriage is for children and gays can't have children" argument. If marriage is truly about children, why can het couples who CAN'T have children get married? Or who won't...?
You can see the idea.
What your previous responder said. This is in the genre of Johnathan Swift's A Modest Proposal satire.
We could hope that it would make people think rather than endlessly repeating the nonsensical statement that marriage is necessary "to protect children." Originally, marriage was "necessary" to protect property rights. Now, some people seek it for the legal protections it offers, protections that are denied to those who choose not to marry a partner or are prevented from doing so. But most of the people I know who have chosen marriage have done so as the first step of building a partnered life. I know of no one who got married for kids even if they were in the plan for the future.
Post a Comment