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.
I'm not real up on what Rudy stands for- but I think he's more 'human rights' than he is about a 'gay agenda'
Specifically, what would they NOT have with a civil union that a married couple has? I've never read anything to indicate that a civil union was really any different from marriage. Only the names have been changed to protect the innocent.
If I might reference what you wrote about 2 mom or 2 pop homes: I heard Rosie O'Donnell refer to her girlfriend/live-in/partner (whatever) as her 'wife'. It repulsed me to no end. There's a distortion of definitions going on. Marriage, husband and wife mean something already. The gays need to get some other names for their sig. others and get over it.
I stand corrected. I forgot about Jerry Lee Lewis.
I stand corrected. I forgot about Jerry Lee Lewis.
lol
Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between the intended consequences and the unintended ones. Like Rush likes to say; what would you be doing differently?
That's discriminatory. They should require ALL COUPLES to produce a child.
There's issues like joint insurance that they are complaining about that they can't get- spousal benifits & such, Tax perks for married couples & such- however, there are workarounds to practically all these marriage perks already- but that isn't good enough for them- they want EVERYTHING married couples enjoy without having to do the workarounds.
Kattieanna- yep- it is quite disgusting
>>>Like Rush likes to say; what would you be doing differently?
What would I be doing differently? I would have my REnewed driver's license for one! And I would still be married in the EYES of the state.
I'm going to assume you have no idea what I posted and you are not asking for clarification for some unknown reason?
The States will have to only recognize marriages under a Civil Certificate.
My husband and I were living together illegally for 5 years because we did not file our marriage certificate with the state of Michigan within 90 days of the wedding. This was in the 1970's.
well as I said- I beleive he is more for human rights for everyone- if he's against gay marriage- then he isn't for a gay 'agenda' - if he is for the right for a gay person to not be discriminated against when it comes to things like medical coverage for individuals or whatever, then he's for human rights for everyone.
To those that pooh-poohed the idea of 'gay marriage' as a 'Slippery Slope'....you shall reap what you sow.
I lived with my husband for 2 years before we were officially (err, as per the state UNofficially married).
Now, since the state doesn't recognize religious issued marriage certificates, how do I get my license renewed?
And, by the way, this was done in our state first and needs to be made transferrable to other states. Which is what they are doing now with the 'have children proposal'. The only result they care about is having marriage recognized under Civil law and not religious.
So you don't get what that GLAAD conference was about?
Probably not.
My driver's license is still in my "maiden" name and I have been married for 35 years. I was told that I have to file a legal name change. They would not accept my U.S. passport or my SS card or even my library card as valid secondary ID.
Now that is an interesting idea! I will look into a legal name change.
One more, what is stopping the state from back billing me taxes for filing joint returns since they no longer legally recognize marriage performed in religious institutes?
Actually I'm pointing out the irony of a Liberal forcing a woman to have a baby or face a consequence.
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.