Yes, we’re having babies…let’s get started!
KNDO/KNDU Tri-Cities, Yakima, WA | Gay Rights Activists Introduce Initiative that Would Require Children in Marriages — This is rich. So what do the anti-gay marriage fools say to this idea??
KENNEWICK, Wash.- A new initiative is turning heads around the state as the gay-marriage debate heats up again.
Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed has accepted Iinitiative 957, a response by gay rights activists to a State Supreme Court ruling last summer.
The Washington Supreme Court ruled that the state could prevent gay and lesbian couples from marrying because the state has a legitimate interest in preserving marriage for procreation.
The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance then filed the initiative.
I-957 has five clauses that would have to be met for a legal marriage.
It would allow only couples capable of having kids to marry, and that they file “proof of procreation” within three years of the marriage. If not, the marriage would be annulled.
Many people think the law is over the top.
Leaders at a Kennewick church with gay and lesbian members feel the same.
“There are many marriages that are not about having children. There are many couples who marry later in life, they marry for companionship, they marry because they want to create a family,” said the Reverend Janet Pierce.
“They don’t necessarily marry to have children,” Pierce said.
I-957 would also force couples who married out of state to show the same proof of procreation or their marriage wouldn’t be recognized, and it would become a criminal act for anyone in an unrecognized marriage to get marriage benefits.
found by Mister Justin (on a roll).
Will this backfire to the Republicans or will be buried into oblivion the next time Britney spears shows her crotch?
>> Many people think the law is over the top.
No… d’ya think?
I’m laughing my heterosexual, fertile testicles off. What is good for the goose is good for the gander I suppose.
This is great. I think that the next time someone in congress puts for an anti-gay marriage amendment, it would be awesome if someone put forth an amendment like this or one that outlawed divorce (since marriage is so sacred they must want that too, right?)
Of course no one in congress would have the guts to do that and risk showing they have a backbone…
Clever!
The proponents of this initiative hope it will lose (and no doubt it will lose), thereby stripping away the last “logical” argument used by those opposed to gay marriage since the voters themselves will say that marriage is legitimate for reasons besides child rearing.They will have no other arguments to use except religious ones, or ones based on sheer bigotry.
Again, very clever! I hope the initiative loses.
Ok,
So I recently got married and I see that picture and nearly fell out of my chair.
We had the same cake top!!!!
It took some doing, but my wife bought that cake top after I begged and pleaded with her that it would be funny!!!
As a side note… I know a few gay and lesbians that refer to heterosexuals as “breeders.” Guess I’m a breeder!!! Baby #1 is on the way!!
So many goofy laws in Washington State, and I move to Florida… hello frying pan, what’s this…. fire?!?!
Actually the outlawing divorce would probably go over as a good idea in some circles.
#7, but the wrong circles.
Does anyone know how long a marriage license has been legally “required”? For that matter, a birth certificate? Should not a marriage be between two people, not two people and the STATE?
Sounds to me that they’re grasping at straws, for anything, to keep the gay people from marrying.
I tell you one thing…if a law like that ever takes hold…it would mean a hell of a lot less business for those little chapels in Vegas!!
Here’s a simple question that I’ve tried and failed to find the answer to:
Are children raised by gay couples more at risk?
But before we deny a civil benefit (marriage) to a whole class of people (homosexuals), shouldn’t there be a large, compelling definitive body of research to prove it’s needed?
Gay couples with children have been around for decades so I’d expect there to be longitudinal studies on the health of their children.
Is anyone aware of these studies? How can a court rule based on unsubstantiated opinion about the children of gays?
I don’t expect you to post this, but what’s with all the gay rights stuff? I thought you were a techno geek. Are you gay? I don’t really care, just interested to know.
T, Did anyone ever tell you that you’re an idiot? Seriously. I don’t really care. I’m just interested to know.
T is not an idiot, just a bigot. Oops, that’s the same thing. My mistake.
C. Flowers – #10
I don’t mean to be rude, but did you actually read the article?
This is a quote from the article.
“Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed has accepted Iinitiative 957, a response by gay rights activists to a State Supreme Court ruling last summer.
Jon Noring has a good point in # 5.
Have a nice day 🙂
The dvorak blog reaches all topics not only technology
without censorship… Except for aLix who loves to censor.
When you say something stupid on the D…….blog, John gets cranky and then nasty. LOL
BTW,
Gay marriage is like eating a steak with a spoon.
Again, very clever! I hope the initiative loses.
What happens if it doesn’t lose?
I like the idea, shows a lot of wit which is sadly missing in the ongoing debate. Deserves to pass into law. Although It was eight years between my marriage and first child.
It might work just as well if it passes. Suddenly there would be a significant number of heterosexual couples with annulled marriages who might want to stay together through some other kind of state mechanism – perhaps civil union?
9, 16 Marriage licenses have been a legally required item for well over 100 years, depending on the jurisdiction. Ditto birth certificates.
Note that for both, the equivalents for each have been around for centuries. cf. “reading of the banns” and “baptismal records”.
#15 — How about this for an idea…you have to BE pregnant to get married.
To update my first comment (#5) where losing the initiative would itself send a message, winning will also send a message requiring lawmakers in Washington to fix the mess it creates, meaning again that the argument about marriage being primarily for the children will get defanged.
(If one visits the intiiative’s web site, they appear to be advocating everyone vote for the initiative.)
Again, clever! The initiative, should it get on the ballot (I foresee attempts to keep it off the ballot), will only be positive for the gay rights side, win or lose. The question is which will get more bang for the buck, winning or losing?
22 – Er.. yes, that was my point. I was also explaining why they’ve been around so long.
Marriage certificates…who knows. But my grandmother didn’t have a birth certificate. She was born in 1908 on a baron’s estate in what was at the time, the Austrio-Hungarian Empire. The family was neigher surf nor nobility…her father was the overseer of the estate (middle class surfdom!)
Of course, once she passed through Ellis Island, she was quite sell documented.
But what about her partents? They were married, in Europe, with no papers, and lived in the US as married people before he died in about 1940.
Oh, wait, that wasn’t the USA, that was Brooklyn!
Pedro – I bet the daddies always made sure they had a live chicken on hand to butcher for a little fresh blood… just in case.
Sounds as if Citizen is synonyms with Slave. You must notify the government when a child is born, to get married, give them a portion of your salary. They must even certify death. Wonder why they want to know so much?
>>BgScryAnml
There are plenty of countries or parts of countries that don’t have what you’re complaining about — I’ve lived in a couple of them and visited others.
Trust me. They suck.
Few laws with most not enforced.
Freedom to do practically anything if you have the power —
and no taxes!
But no security, safeguards or controls.
But if you want to move to Somalia or rural Pakistan … go for it! It’s a libertarian dream!
As for me, I’ll take civilization any time — and the taxes and rules that go with it.
>But before we deny a civil benefit (marriage) to a whole class of people (homosexuals), shouldn’t there be a large, compelling definitive body of research to prove it’s needed?
You’re point is valid but you have it backwards. No gay marriage is the existing rule, and you should have a very compelling reason to change things.
30 & 31 Sorry, my mistake! One wonders how this country made it until FDR and the bankers came along.
#31. Perhaps, just perhaps the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA could conduct a census.