|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:18 pm
Taken from a Facebook group entitled "Gay Marriage Killed the Dinosaurs"
Washington state's Defense of Marriage Alliance is planning three ballot initiatives to help preserve marriage. The first would make procreation a requirement for legal marriage. The second would prohibit divorce or legal separation when there are children. The third would make the act of having a child together the legal equivalent of a marriage ceremony.
On 1/26/07 the Washington Secretary of State has accepted their pro-procreation Defense of Marriage Initiative on the ballot as initiative 957.
If passed by Washington voters, the Defense of Marriage Initiative would:
- add the phrase, “who are capable of having children with one another” to the legal definition of marriage;
- require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;
- require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as “unrecognized;”
- establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and
- make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits.
I just don't know what to say . . .
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:26 pm
So, wait...they're turning kids into requirements to keep a marriage valid? So, a couple that sincerely wants to remain married will be forced to have a child, even if they don't want it? Ohhh wow. -sigh-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:32 pm
WTF? First the gays and now those of us who love but just don't want kids? Or can't have them in the first 3 years? What about those that want to wait to have kids? God damn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:05 pm
No worries, you guys... this whole thing is a stunt that's been cooked up specifically to point out the trouble with arguing that gays shouldn't marry if they aren't going to (naturally) produce kids. Wikipedia knows all, tells allSeattle Times spills the beansIn summary, the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance is actually a gay-rights group. The whole point of this initiative is to be struck down and thus create precedent - so, in essence, when the initiative crashes and burns, these guys can say, 'Oho, mister judge, I guess marriage isn't just about making babies after all!'. That said, I'm not even sure if it will be on the November ballot. There was a deadline for collecting signatures on July 6, but I can't seem to find any recent articles to see if DOMA filled their quota. Hum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:14 pm
As I recall, Washington struck down gay marriage on the grounds that there's no procreation, and that's supposedly a requirement.
So this group is trying to "pass" this initiative, and have everything go 'WTF?!' and strike it down, and set that as a precedent.. Then challenge again for gay marriage.
Because honestly- who's going to vote for a law that invalidates the marriage of old seniors, infertile couples, couples who've gotten their partners get their tubes tied, or had a vasectomy, etc.etc.?
>D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 5:07 am
Well s**t.
“who are capable of having children with one another” huh?
My mum was totally infertile, I'm adopted. So according to that particular law they couldn't get married.
Mad props to them totally not thinking that law through. XXXD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 5:41 am
I was totally about to post that this is likely a stunt to prove a point... but it seems I was beaten to the punch.
I think more initiatives like this should be presented in all states. They won't pass, and if they do pass it will get those lazy non-voting retards to actually get off their asses and care about our political system now that it is nullifying marriages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 7:35 am
Washington upheld a ban on same-sex marriage on the basis that gay couples can't procreate. This is a stunt to get the state on record and get legal precedent saying marriage is NOT about procreation.
Scenario One: It passes, and gets struck down. There's a legal precedent explicitly saying marriage is not about procreation.
Scenario Two: It fails, and the state is on record saying marriage is not about procreation.
Either way, it's an opening to bring the gay marriage fight back.
And "procreation" doesn't really look like a word anymore. o.O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 9:09 am
LOL. That is a great stunt. It shows just how ridiculous it is to base the concept of marriage on being able to procreate together.
No one is going to vote for that and it's going to force people to really think about their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 9:22 am
Is there any way to make sure this isn't a hoax? It's flat-out rediculous?
EDIT: *reads thread* I feel dumb now. Those people deserve a medal. But of course, there's the off-chance that it'll actually get passed. That would be a sadface day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 9:46 am
I don't know what to say, either. I'd think this was a tactic to get more couples on the pro-gay marriage side, because I doubt that anyone'd vote for it... but still, who knows?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:57 am
Lupine Pyrefly Is there any way to make sure this isn't a hoax? It's flat-out rediculous? EDIT: *reads thread* I feel dumb now. Those people deserve a medal. But of course, there's the off-chance that it'll actually get passed. That would be a sadface day. I disagree. I think it would be fabulous if it got passed. A lot of people are not involved in the political system because they are lazy or just don't care. This is something extreme that we know most people are actually opposed to (especially in Washington State, which isn't exactly a hubub of christian conservatism, ya know?). It will get them pissed off for 2 reasons: 1. It is obviously absurd (which brings to light why it is absurd to ban gay marriage for the same reason) 2. They will be pissed something like this could happen due to their sloth (prompting more political activity among the reasonable and rational people who currently don't vote for one reason or another).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:00 pm
MGadda No worries, you guys... this whole thing is a stunt that's been cooked up specifically to point out the trouble with arguing that gays shouldn't marry if they aren't going to (naturally) produce kids. Wikipedia knows all, tells allSeattle Times spills the beansIn summary, the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance is actually a gay-rights group. The whole point of this initiative is to be struck down and thus create precedent - so, in essence, when the initiative crashes and burns, these guys can say, 'Oho, mister judge, I guess marriage isn't just about making babies after all!'. That said, I'm not even sure if it will be on the November ballot. There was a deadline for collecting signatures on July 6, but I can't seem to find any recent articles to see if DOMA filled their quota. Hum. Lmao, wow, brilliance. Very very brilliant. ::gold star::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 1:32 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 2:05 pm
Lupine Pyrefly Is there any way to make sure this isn't a hoax? It's flat-out rediculous? EDIT: *reads thread* I feel dumb now. Those people deserve a medal. But of course, there's the off-chance that it'll actually get passed. That would be a sadface day. Haha yeah I feel a little silly now that I know the real intent of this initiative. But it is kind of a good idea, provided it doesn't actually pass. That would be awful. I know I don't want to have kids that soon after I get married, I might not want kids at all! What if I want to adopt?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
