Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    18,759
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    139 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475234

    Default Initiative would REQUIRE Married couples to have children

    WOW - This is CRAZY. Some liberals are INSANE.

    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."
    Read the rest:
    http://www.komotv.com/news/5566451.html
    “… the greatest detractor from high performance is fear: fear that you are not prepared, fear that you are in over your head, fear that you are not worthy, and ultimately, fear of failure. If you can eliminate that fear—not through arrogance or just wishing difficulties away, but through hard work and preparation—you will put yourself in an incredibly powerful position to take on the challenges you face" - Pete Carroll.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    12,504
    Thanks (Given)
    6
    Thanks (Received)
    210
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    565784

    Default

    Its amazing what Libs will do to destroy traditional marriage.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Thunder Road
    Posts
    1,104
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by avatar4321 View Post
    Its amazing what Libs will do to destroy traditional marriage.
    And what percentage of "libs" are supporting that?? You do know they're making fun of you guys, right? They're just playing in to the "gays can't procreate so they shouldn't be married thing". They know it isn't even up for discussion, much less passage.

    It's amazing what the rabid right will do to justify lumping everyone in together. No nuance. No subtlety... clearly no sense of humor since the proposal is clearly a goof. But there ya go.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums