The debate over same sex marriages has been going on for quite some time and there are many reasons that laws are upheld banning those marriages. In many states, one of the reasons that same sex marriages are illegal is because they cannot naturally produce children. Many of the laws state that because of the inability to naturally "procreate", same sex marriage cannot be legal. Some proponents of same sex marriage in Washington State are thinking of creative ways to strike down these laws as unconstitutional. They are asking for a law to be created that requires a married couple to have children within the first three years of marriage, or face an annulment of that marriage. They agree that such a law is absurd and will probably be struck down as unconstitutional, but their reasoning behind such a law is that procreation cannot be a reason to uphold marriage as a union between a man and woman. This logical approach to the questions surrounding same sex marriage is at the very least interesting, and I'm sure will create a dialogue. I've long since thought that people who thought marriage was strictly a portal to have children were short sighted. If a marriage is to endure and stand the test of time after the children are raised and on their own, there has to be a better reason for why a couple got married than "we wanted to have children". I'm sure that the same sex marriage debate will be going on for quite some time, and its arguably one of those age old debates which may never come to its conclusion. However, when people are able to think out of the box and find creative ways to get people to understand their point of view, we can come closer to an answer to this debate.
If you would like to read about the Washington same sex marriage law debate, see: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/302553_initiative06.html