Posted on 02/06/2007 10:02:28 AM PST by Graybeard58
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" under- lying 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. All other marriages in the state would be defined as "unrecognized," making those couples ineligible for marriage benefits.
The paperwork for the measure was submitted last month.
Supporters must gather at least 224,800 signatures by July 6 to put it on the November ballot.
The group said the proposal was aimed at "social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation."
Cheryl Haskins, executive director of Allies for Marriage and Children, said opponents of same-sex marriage want only to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
"Some of those unions produce children and some of them don't," she said.
They are really pushing their luck here.
WTF!!!
Better pass a law stopping abortion while at it.
Giuliani and his gay agenda types would love to push this on a national level!
Then the gays would be not be able to be married in the first place because it would be impossible for the "couple" to produce a child.
Okay, let's raise taxes to 100% then. Two can play this game...
But what about a "woman's right to choose"?
WTF?
I don't think we should jump to conclusions...As a single man, this could save me a lot of money (ring, eventual divorce) and be a good comeback when my girlfriend starts pushing in that direction... :)
Gays are absolutely insane...as if anyone will see this as anything other than sour grapes. Pathetic.
Gotta respect the ingenuity at play here. Once they've gotten the point across that marriage is about much more than procreation, then they go after the idea of 'the sanctity of marriage'. Of course 'sanctity' is defined as 'the quality of being holy'. Once you have the state determining what is 'holy' and what isn't it is squarely in religious territory, which according the the doctrine of seperation of chruch and state is unconstitutional.
Why would the Catholic Church annul a marriage at the behest of homosexuals? Only the church can annul a marriage. Maybe "annul" like the word "marriage" is misunderstood by the master race.
Do you mean crushing a babies skull and sucking it out brains first?
"But what about a "woman's right to choose"?"
POST OF THE FREAKING DAY AWARD!
"social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation."
Sole purpose? I don't think I've heard anybody say that.
>>>Why would the Catholic Church annul a marriage at the behest of homosexuals?
Allow me to clarify. Not the Catholic Church. The State.
I've already run into the rabbit hole in Blue Jersey.
The State will no longer recognize a marriage certificate issued by a religious institute as a legal document.
The States will have to only recognize marriages under a Civil Certificate.
See?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.