Hi...I'm Batsh!t insane....sign my bill
 

This has got to be the most rediculous attempt yet, in a series of ignorant moves. Is it an Act of desperation from the loonies?

"Idea Would Require Couples to Have Kids
By RACHEL LA CORTE
Associated Press Writer

February 5, 2007, 10:05 PM EST
OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced a ballot measure that would require heterosexual couples to have a child within three years or have their marriages annulled.

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance acknowledged on its Web site that the initiative was "absurd" but hoped the idea prompts "discussion about the many misguided assumptions" underlying a state Supreme Court ruling that upheld a ban on same-sex marriage.

The measure would require couples to prove they can have children to get a marriage license. Couples who do not have children within three years could have their marriages annulled. "

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...orld-headlines

I think this is no more ignorant than the Democrats' attempt to make a point about the war by introducing a bill to reinstate the draft. In fact, I actually kind of like this idea.

I think this is a hilarious idea. Sends a massive put up or shut up to those who argue that marriage is all about procreation. It nicely underscores the fallacy.

Indeed...let's see which politicians are TRULY "pro-family" :lol:

So since I can not have kids (my tubes were tied in December) Pan and I shouldnt be able to get married?

Forcing people who do not want to have kids to make babies for sake of it is a farce! There are plenty of unwanted children on this rock to begin with. Adopt some of them. The worls is overpopulated enough without people adding to it. :( Where do people get off trying to play dictator?

Please, everyone, read the whole post. First, the people introducing this measure don't agree with it at all! In fact, as is noted in the original post, they describe it as "absurd." They are introducing the measure to make a point, not to make a law. Second, let's try and keep ourselves firmly grounded in the reality that there's no risk of this passing. Don't waste energy getting upset about something for no reason :thumbsup:

I think it's brilliant. The whole point is to draw attention to a weak argument against gay marriage. They know the bill won't pass, but the point is to call everyone out who uses that argument. The bill won't pass, and even if it did, it probably wouldn't stand up in court, but it's great move to get people talking about the issue.

Since this is the issue that the courts have grasped to disallow gay marriage, it's a pretty clever counterattack. There's no chance of it passing, but it's a great way to "out" those whose agendas are more "anti-homosexual" than "pro-family".

Dammit.....Could have had an out.....on the other hand, this would make Melissa Etheridge more eligible for marriage than I was-hence the absurdity of those so-called 'pro-family', 'anti-gay marriage' screamers. Too funny.

This is local news for me and I love it. I thought Washington politics was hopelessly boring, unlike Texas. The background to this bit of absurdity is that our Supreme Court struck down a law for marriage equality partially due to the State's interest in "procreation."

The initiative supporters plan some more fun: Divorce or separation will be prohibited if the couple have children (now *that's* a defense of marriage); and two single people having a child together would automatically be married. I wonder if there will be a rape/incest exception? :)

This is all intended to open greater discussion about the issues, rather than a serious effort to bring I-957 into law.

I love it! What a great way to really bring your point across.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!! That's a fun way to shut people up about the whole gay marriage producing offspring thing.

But aren't most of the retards that get knoked up single?


I could go on... and on... about how baddly I hate kids and how much more I hate people that it's their civil/religous duty to have as many kids as possible.



Fuckin' rednecks...

According to the logic of some of the anti-gay idiots, absolutely. Some fools think sex is ONLY for procreation and any other form of it is a sin. Since you can't procreate, you're sinning by having sex. Totally stupid, as this bill points out.

This bill is satire. It's not meant to get passed. It's meant to point out the absurdity of the idea that ONLY heterosexual couples can get married because gay couples can't conceive children. It's in the same vein as "A Modest Proposal." Jonathan Swift didn't REALLY want Irish parents to eat their children. He was using absurdity as a tool to get people to realize that they were, in fact, being absurd. Same story with this bill.

I wonder what Cheney and his daughter would make of this initiative.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Awesome. Hahaha.

I take it that you support our initiative? :wave:

Family-friendly isn't a bad thing, is it?

...if it is...I"m bad.

Damn.

The full text of the bill specifies that any couple that has a child will be considered legally married.

But what about people who have children with more than one person? Is there a clause for polygamy? HAHAAHHAAHAAA!

There is a clause for people like that Jess. It's call the, "you are going to burn in hell for eternity" clause.

Clever indeed - I like it.
For those of you in Washington who believe same-sex marriage shouldnt be banned: Are you going to lend your signature to get this on the ballot?

:D

I knew what this was going to be before I opened it. It's been all over the gay press.

It's nothing more than the sponsors pointing out the absurdity of the "marriage is for procreation" argument against same sex marriage.

I would certainly sign the initiative as would my husband, but I would be surprised if the required number of signatures is obtained. I believe the initiative wishes to encourage discussion rather than an expectation of passage. The language of the initiative is clearly unconstitutional based upon Washington law. Given the progressive nature of Western Washington, it is possible to get the initiative on the ballot, but the state as a whole is unlikely to pass it.

I applaud the creative approach in drawing attention to the matter. :)

Don't mention his daughter:lol: !

According to some poeple, a very popular alternative. According to others, perish the word, nonsense!
If one had to have kids with someone to live with them, we'd be taking up alot more room, wouldn't we?

This is not fair to those heteros who have problems procreating. I don't think 3 years is long enough. They should give them more time. All a couple should have to do is prove they are members of the opposite sex and the state should not force a timing requirement on them. Also forcing those who have children to marry would cause some problems for sperm banks etc..and may result in required DNA testing to determine the real parents:)

Are you saying that I am completely out of line? :lol: