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

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

Expand Messages
  • richard kelly
    Gregory: You might have the idea here for a pretty good movie, kind of a 1984 scenerio. Richard Kelly ...
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 7, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      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.