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

Re: [prezveepsenator] Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids

Expand Messages
  • richard kelly
    I guess April Fools came early this year? Richard Kelly ... http://www.nwcn.com/statenews/washington/stories/NW_020507WABinitiative957SW.546c6a4d.html ...
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 7, 2007
      I guess April Fools came early this year?

      Richard Kelly
      --- Greg Cannon <gregcannon1@...> wrote:

      >
      http://www.nwcn.com/statenews/washington/stories/NW_020507WABinitiative957SW.546c6a4d.html
      >
      > 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
    • Gregory
      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
      Message 2 of 4 , 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
        marriage.

        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.

        Gregory
        >




        > I guess April Fools came early this year?
        >
        > Richard Kelly
        > --- Greg Cannon <gregcannon1@...> wrote:
        >
        > >
        >
        http://www.nwcn.com/statenews/washington/stories/NW_020507WABinitiativ
        e957SW.546c6a4d.html
        > >
        > > 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
        >
      • richard kelly
        Gregory: You might have the idea here for a pretty good movie, kind of a 1984 scenerio. Richard Kelly ...
        Message 3 of 4 , Feb 7, 2007
          Gregory:

          You might have the idea here for a pretty good movie,
          kind of a "1984" scenerio.

          Richard Kelly
          --- Gregory <greggolopry@...> wrote:

          >
          >
          >
          > 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
          > marriage.
          >
          > 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.
          >
          > Gregory
          > >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > > I guess April Fools came early this year?
          > >
          > > Richard Kelly
          > > --- Greg Cannon <gregcannon1@...> wrote:
          > >
          > > >
          > >
          >
          http://www.nwcn.com/statenews/washington/stories/NW_020507WABinitiativ
          > e957SW.546c6a4d.html
          > > >
          > > > 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
          > >
          >
          >
          >




          ____________________________________________________________________________________
          Do you Yahoo!?
          Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
          http://new.mail.yahoo.com
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.