OLYMPIA, Wash. - An initiative filed by proponents of same-sex marriage would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriage annulled.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Initiative 957 was filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance. That group was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅFor many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation ... The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine," said WA-DOMA organizer Gregory Gadow in a printed statement. ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅIf same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supporters must gather more than 224,000 valid signatures by July 6 to put the initiative on the November ballot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Opponents say the measure is another attack on traditional marriage, but supporters say the move is needed to have a discussion on the high court ruling.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: The Associated Press

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have problems with the law being used to "prove a point." It seems similar to Representative Charles Rangel calling for a draft - not because he wants it, but to prove a point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In my opinion, if you want something done (like legal homosexual marriages), then gain enough support to pass a law that makes it legal. Wasting time with obviously and purposefully ridiculous legislation is a waste of everyone's time and money, and is childish. The law isn't something to be played with.

thats not reallys fair to women with turner syndrome, homosexuals and others that cant have children....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i hope they dont even get close to 224,000 votes

Greeeeat. Let's all follow the "two wrongs make a right" philosophy!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, so a couple of gay guys can't get married, and now they want everyone to pay the price. Whatever...There isn't a person on this Earth that can FORCE a couple to have children.

What is this communist Russia?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That and their trying to turn it into present day China.

Damn, this initiative really takes a dump on the gay community...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wouldn't worry about it, though. I don't think this initiative will get anywhere near the ballot.

Ever consider the people who are finincially unable to support a child? Congratulations, Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, you're a bunch of [wagon]!

Ever consider the people who are finincially unable to support a child? Congratulations, Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, you're a bunch of [wagon]!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nah, they'd rather take our tax paying dollars and give the parents welfare for kids they never needed to have.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a bad way to try to legalize gay marriage.

I doubt it'll pass. There'll be too much opposition.

Err, I think the majority of those who have posted so far have kind of missed the point...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think it's fine for ridiculous legislation to be proposed in order to prove a point. It helps bring to the forefront the hypocrisy and illogical rationale for banning gay marriage.

@riku: missed a bit there. Point is that one argument against "same-sex" is that they can't reproduce. And now this is pushing to split up hetrosexual marraiges because that aren't reproducing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To them, same-sex marriage (where there's not reproduction) and hetrosexual marraige where there is no reproduction are exactly the same. Can't really blame them either, pretty logical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't say "you can't reproduce so you're not getting married" and in the same breath marry two people who have no intention of having kids just because they're opposite gender :uhh: The hell?

I doubt it'll pass. There'll be too much opposition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's not a snowball's chance in hell. He's just making a point.

Bye bye IVF. What a stupid proposition (although i'm pretty sure it wont pass). There are alot of decent people out there who have real troubles and emotional hardships because they can't have children naturally.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PC is the DEVIL and must DIE. :evil:

Although I dont support it, this legaslation is making a valid point that

 

 

 

if Same-Sex unions are disallowed on the basis of being unable to recreate, then all hetrosexual couples must procreate, for them to be considered engaged in marriage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I applaud the destruction of such a blatently stupid ( Or at least hypocritical ) argument against Same-Sex unions. =D>

@riku: missed a bit there. Point is that one argument against "same-sex" is that they can't reproduce. And now this is pushing to split up hetrosexual marraiges because that aren't reproducing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To them, same-sex marriage (where there's not reproduction) and hetrosexual marraige where there is no reproduction are exactly the same. Can't really blame them either, pretty logical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't say "you can't reproduce so you're not getting married" and in the same breath marry two people who have no intention of having kids just because they're opposite gender :uhh: The hell?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

im not really sure what you mean there but what if someone got married planned to have a child in the 3 year time limit and then the woman got cancer ( your not supposed to have children when you have cancer right) that wouldn't really be fair. my point is that its not fair because you were born with a problem so now you cant marry or you have a problem after you get married and get your marriage taken away

It's obviously not going to be passed, but it's a hell of a great point.

 

@riku: missed a bit there. Point is that one argument against "same-sex" is that they can't reproduce. And now this is pushing to split up hetrosexual marraiges because that aren't reproducing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To them, same-sex marriage (where there's not reproduction) and hetrosexual marraige where there is no reproduction are exactly the same. Can't really blame them either, pretty logical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't say "you can't reproduce so you're not getting married" and in the same breath marry two people who have no intention of having kids just because they're opposite gender :uhh: The hell?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

im not really sure what you mean there but what if someone got married planned to have a child in the 3 year time limit and then the woman got cancer ( your not supposed to have children when you have cancer right) that wouldn't really be fair. my point is that its not fair because you were born with a problem so now you cant marry or you have a problem after you get married and get your marriage taken away

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Too bad. It's for the good of the family. (Hoorah for family groups!)

I quite like the sound of this legislation, could be a way out of marriage without getting a divorce and having to split assets.

Greeeeat. Let's all follow the "two wrongs make a right" philosophy!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, so a couple of gay guys can't get married, and now they want everyone to pay the price. Whatever...There isn't a person on this Earth that can FORCE a couple to have children.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

+80

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What an Odd Law to pass :ohnoes:

Err, I think the majority of those who have posted so far have kind of missed the point...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think it's fine for ridiculous legislation to be proposed in order to prove a point. It helps bring to the forefront the hypocrisy and illogical rationale for banning gay marriage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yea, I sort of agree with you now.

 

Ever consider the people who are finincially unable to support a child? Congratulations, Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, you're a bunch of [wagon]!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nah, they'd rather take our tax paying dollars and give the parents welfare for kids they never needed to have.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a bad way to try to legalize gay marriage.

Is there a good way?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No but really can you find ANY psychologist with a PHD that would say its 'good' for a child to grow up without a mom AND a dad? Could you find a psychologist that would say its 'not bad' even?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Historically marriage is between a man and a women. Why change that?

And historically females took thier husbands last name, but that changed as well now didn't it :uhh:

Heck, when I get married, I don't want kids until a few years after so I can get a nice financial foundation down.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've said it a million times, I would be happy to let homosexuals get married in trade for further bans on abortion. :P

That doesn't even have a chance of getting through, silly conservative extremists.

Heck, when I get married, I don't want kids until a few years after so I can get a nice financial foundation down.

 

 

 

Idealy, you should have a nice finacial foundation down BEFORE you get married :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've said it a million times, I would be happy to let homosexuals get married in trade for further bans on abortion. :P

The lesser of two "evils" aye?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@Celt23: No [cabbage], this is just to prove a point that "you can't have kids so no marriage" is a [cabbage] argument against same-sex marriage.

 

 

Ever consider the people who are finincially unable to support a child? Congratulations, Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, you're a bunch of [wagon]!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nah, they'd rather take our tax paying dollars and give the parents welfare for kids they never needed to have.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a bad way to try to legalize gay marriage.

 

 

 

Historically marriage is between a man and a women. Why change that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't base stuff off of tradition, historically the Jews have been persecuted(thoughout ALL of history)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with the point this legislation is attempting to show people.