1 - Get married 2- have kids.. or else

Blind_Io

"Be The Match" Registered
DONOR
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
24,200
Location
Utah
Car(s)
See signature
http://www.komotv.com/news/5566451.html

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced an initiative that would put a whole new twist on traditional unions between men and women: It would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriages annulled.

Initiative 957 was filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, which was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage. In that 5-4 ruling, the court found that state lawmakers were justified in passing the 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which restricts marriage to unions between a man and woman.

Under I-957, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriages would be subject to annulment.

All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized" and people in them would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.

"Absurd? Very," the group says on its Web site, which adds it is planning two more initiatives involving marriage and procreation. "But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions" underlying the Supreme Court's ruling.

Gregory Gadow, who filed I-957 last month, said the three-year timeframe was arbitrary.

"We did toy with the idea of (requiring) procreation before marriage," he said. "We didn't want to piss off the fundamentalists too much."

Gadow said that if the group's initiatives were passed, the Supreme Court would be forced to strike them down as unconstitutional, which he believes would weaken the original ruling upholding the Defense of Marriage Act.

But he said he highly doubts any of the initiatives will pass, and that they are being done "in the spirit of political street theater."

"Our intention is not to actually put this into law," he said. "All we want is to get this on the ballot and cause people to talk about it."

The group's Web site gives another reason: "And at the very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric."

Cheryl Haskins, executive director of Allies for Marriage & Children, agreed with Gadow's group on at least one point about the initiative: "It's absurd," she said.

Haskins said opponents of same-sex marriage "have never said that the sole purpose of marriage is procreation."

"When we talk about defending the institution of marriage, we're talking about the union of a man and a woman," she said. "Some of those unions produce children and some of them don't."

With I-957, "you're dictating people's choices in a way that is utterly ridiculous," she said.

However, Gadow noted that the Supreme Court's majority decision specifically mentioned procreation throughout.

The opinion written by Justice Barbara Madsen concluded that "limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the state's interests in procreation and encouraging families with a mother and father and children biologically related to both."

Gadow said the argument is unfair when you're dealing with same-sex couples who are unable to have children together.

"What we are trying to do is display the discrimination that is at the heart of last year's ruling," he said.

Even the Legislature's most prominent proponent of same-sex marriage, Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, said he thought the initiative was misguided. While the "absurdity" of the Supreme Court decision should be discussed, that discussion needs to take place in the Legislature, he said.

"I don't think the initiative process should be used to determine the rights and protections of marriage," he said.

Murray, one of five openly gay lawmakers in the Legislature, is sponsoring a measure that would create domestic partnerships for same-sex couples and another to allow same-sex marriage. The domestic partnership measure has passed out of committee and a vote on the Senate floor could come within weeks.

The sponsor of the same-sex marriage measure in the House, Rep. Jamie Pedersen, said he supported the effort "to draw attention to the hypocrisy of some of those who oppose marriage equality" but opposed the initiative.

"For the same reason I don't think same-sex couples should be excluded from marriage, I don't think heterosexual married couples should be forced to procreate," said Pedersen, D-Seattle.

Supporters of I-957 must gather at least 224,800 valid signatures by July 6 to put it on the November ballot.

The measure's backers said the two additional initiatives they plan would prohibit divorce or separation when a married couple has children, and would make having a child together the equivalent of marriage.

Gadow said his goal is to raise $300,000 to spend on advertising on the first initiative.

Oh, hello? Is this your petard?
 
Interesting idea. I like it!
 
Oooh, good thing it doesnt apply to heterosexual couples, or my wife and I would be also forced to have children...<shudder>
 
Few things: One: with this law i would be doing paternity test just to check if she was not figuring well if he cant plant a seed im not going to pay a lawyer. Two: kids cost a lot of money, lots of people on welfare will like. Three: if we let gays get married then we are a step closer to polygamy. Let them go nuts, gay divorce will be a huge drama and really funny to watch.
 
Oooh, good thing it doesnt apply to heterosexual couples, or my wife and I would be also forced to have children...<shudder>

Actually, it does. Read the article

Few things: One: with this law i would be doing paternity test just to check if she was not figuring well if he cant plant a seed im not going to pay a lawyer. Two: kids cost a lot of money, lots of people on welfare will like. Three: if we let gays get married then we are a step closer to polygamy. Let them go nuts, gay divorce will be a huge drama and really funny to watch.

Horseshit. Civil unions, or marriages are still only between two people, so don't give me that load of bollocks. You sure don't see a sudden rise in plural marriages in the states that have legalized same-sex marriage. Pull your head out of your ass before you do permanent brain damage from hypoxia.
 
Last edited:
I'm fine with gay marriage and polygamy.

This is actually pretty funny, and it would be funnier if it passed. However, it is a waste of time and money.
 
If it were up to me, I'd take the "marriage" concept out of government.

I'd have the ability in the law for someone to designate 1 other person (any person) as a "special status" person, that will provide them with the same rights and protection as married people have now.

If people still want to get "married", let religious institutions do that.

This way you separate the legal concept from the religious one.
 
Marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman. No human law can ever change that.
 
flamewar.jpg
 
If it were up to me, I'd take the "marriage" concept out of government.

I'd have the ability in the law for someone to designate 1 other person (any person) as a "special status" person, that will provide them with the same rights and protection as married people have now.

If people still want to get "married", let religious institutions do that.

This way you separate the legal concept from the religious one.
not a bad idea. or just list thier spouse as a dependant, like kids.
 
not a bad idea. or just list thier spouse as a dependant, like kids.
Oh, sure, invite the feminists, why don't you! :rolleyes:

If it were up to me, I'd take the "marriage" concept out of government.

I'd have the ability in the law for someone to designate 1 other person (any person) as a "special status" person, that will provide them with the same rights and protection as married people have now.

If people still want to get "married", let religious institutions do that.

This way you separate the legal concept from the religious one.
At first glance, it sounds better than what we have now.
 
That's really quite amusing - seems my childless marriage would be in trouble...

Marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman. No human law can ever change that.

Holy? My wife and I aren't religious, so our marriage certainly isn't 'holy'.
 
Marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman. No human law can ever change that.

If you want to think of marriage as some holy spiritual hocus-pocus then do so. However, in the legal sense a marriage is a contract, nothing more. To exclude a group of people from the right to enter into such a contract based on the personal spiritual beliefs of some individuals is not only unconstitutional and illegal, but flies in the face of everything modern Christians claim to believe in (peace, acceptance, understanding, etc.) Or are we going all Old Testament here? Either way, religion is irrelevant in the legal sense of the argument.

You can believe whatever you like, but under the Constitution you can't prohibit someone from entering into a legally binding contract because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, or sex.

So suck it.
 
If it were up to me, I'd take the "marriage" concept out of government.

I'd have the ability in the law for someone to designate 1 other person (any person) as a "special status" person, that will provide them with the same rights and protection as married people have now.

If people still want to get "married", let religious institutions do that.

This way you separate the legal concept from the religious one.

That's a very interesting idea - I like it. That way churches/traditionalists shouldn't be affronted any more.
 
If it were up to me, I'd take the "marriage" concept out of government.

I'd have the ability in the law for someone to designate 1 other person (any person) as a "special status" person, that will provide them with the same rights and protection as married people have now.

If people still want to get "married", let religious institutions do that.

This way you separate the legal concept from the religious one.

That's kinda similar with what we have done with same-sex marriages. Technically they are Civil-Partnerships, not marriages, but they give the same rights that a married couple would have.
 
Completely rediculous, Why should people have the marrige annuled because they have chosen not to increase the allready diabolically high world population.
 
Completely rediculous, Why should people have the marrige annuled because they have chosen not to increase the allready diabolically high world population.

I guess you missed the point. They are using the same argument the pundits use to ban gay marriage - it shows how stupid the argument of the opposition is. The idea is that if you apply the argument unilaterally to everyone and not just a discriminated population it won't hold up.
 
I do not really understand marriage, is it a belief or law type thing? And if it is belief based then it should not be in any laws. Beliefs are exactly that, and they are opinions that can change. So why make a law that will not allow for two ppl of the same sex not be binded civily?
 
In the law, marriage is a contract, nothing more, nothing less. Anything more than that is beyond the scope of government and they should butt out.
 
the problem comes from nosey people writing in thier personal and religious ideas about marriage into law, but a marriage thru the church and the state are two entirely different things. when you see someone get married in a church they're essentially getting married twice, once for the state and once for god. some people only care about one or the other.
 
Top