Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

2181Re: Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids

Expand Messages
  • Gregory
    Feb 7, 2007
      I think one could go down the list of the reasons why supposedly gay
      people should not be allowed to marry and make a fine set of
      requirements for straight couples.. All marriages must be monogamous
      and any sign of being unfaithful or promiscuous would nullify the

      All marriages must be loving, caring, and supportive (that alone
      would kill a good number of licenses—this idea by the way shows up in
      many "domestic partner agreements" used by large companies today—I
      know of any number of really loveless relationships but yet they
      still get the tax benefits and all the rest).

      All marriages must be only between people of one race as mixing the
      races are unnatural. No mixing of religions either, lest we invoke
      the wrath of the Gods.

      Anyone who isn't "pure" on his or her wedding day can't get married.
      Abstinence is the only righteous thing, as we all know.

      Here, in WI, we heard over an over again that gay marriage would cost
      the society too much since we would then have to extend benefits to
      the partners. Perhaps then it should only be gay people who get
      married because insuring two people who have NO chance of reproducing
      is certainly cheaper than insuring some of these families who are
      popping out kids every other year for a decade or so.

      We also heard about how many diseases gay people carry (that idiot
      Ronald Regan who made HIV/AIDS a gay disease in the 80's so as not to
      have to deal with it truthfully)—so I guess anyone who has ever had
      any sort of venereal disease—especially those with genital herpes who
      need the Valtrex being advertised on TV—or even mononucleosis "the
      kissing disease" for that matter, should never be allowed to marry.

      Choosing one arbitrary characteristic to make the policy on is what
      is most ridiculous, and what makes it so difficult to combat and
      change. The idea of heterosexual privilege is a powerful reason to
      keep the status quo.


      > I guess April Fools came early this year?
      > Richard Kelly
      > --- Greg Cannon <gregcannon1@...> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > Wash. initiative would require married couples to
      > > have
      > > kids
      > >
      > > 12:59 PM PST on Tuesday, February 6, 2007
      > >
      > > KING5.com Staff and Associated Press
      > >
      > > 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.
      > >
      > > "For 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. "If 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.
      > >
      > Do you Yahoo!?
      > Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
      > http://new.mail.yahoo.com
    • Show all 4 messages in this topic