Washington Initiative Would Require Couples To Have Kids

West Central Tribune ^ | 2/11/2007 | Staff

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

Associated Press

Proponents of same-sex marriage in Washington state 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 it Web site that the initiative was 'absurd' but hoped the idea prompts 'discussion...'

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...

...The group said the proposal was aimed at 'social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation'...

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

As I said in the thread which I will give a link to below, I gave more than one reason why marriage should not be redefined. One can look at the other reasons outlined there. This issue does not just revolve around procreation. Liberals clearly are trying to use a straw-man to make conservative principles (like traditional marriage) easier to attack.

One the issue of same-sex marriage(and other issues as well), it is time that conservatives take the offensive.

Remember when Howard Dean said that he couldn't find the issue of same-sex marriage in the Bible? I believe that he, as well as anyone else, can read that Jesus said that marriage is between a man and a woman ("Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife...")

While we are on this topic, can any socially liberal person who considers themself to be a Christian show us in the Bible where the scriptures, or a scripture condones homosexuality, or where a scripture condones same-sex marriage?

The religious left is fond of stating that this scripture or that in Genesis, Leviticus, Jeremiah, Matthew, Mark, etc, does not say what it says concerning homosexuality or marriage. Well, please show us then scriptures which condone homosexuality or same-sex marriage.

There are three primary things which affect politics, political discourse, and the direction which a country takes.

Public opinion, religion, and scientific findings.

Conservatives have public opinion, the majority of religious peoples, and science backing us on these issues.

Liberals are fond of trying to put conservatives on the defensive. This is the means by which they advance liberalism. They (more often than not) do not argue in favor of their positions or agendas, but argue against positions on issues. Make them argue why we should legalize same-sex marriage. Make religious lefties show from the Bible where the Bible condones homosexuality or same-sexmarriage. make them show from all the scientific findings how homosexuality has been proven to be genetic like skin color is. Put them on the defensive.

Many politicians were against a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage based on the grounds that this issue should be left to the states. Fine. Let the states (or a conservative Senator(s)) then begin the process of ratifying a constitutional amendment that says that 1.) Each state will decide on the issue of same-sex marriage, and 2.) This amendment says also that those states which ban same-sex marriage would not be required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The majority of Americans do not want same-sex marriage rammed down their throats.

Simultaneously start (again) the ratification process for a cons. amend. that fedrally bans same-sex marriage. Those who are against a federal ban - lets see what they do or say then when both amendments come down the pike.

Ask those politicians who are against a federal cons. amend. ban on same-sex marriage why they are in favor of the states deciding this, but aren't in favor of letting the states decide on the issue of abortion? Why do they say the gov't should not interfere on abortion at the state level, but say the states can intefere on same-sex marriage?

Put liberals on the defensive.

Conservatives should teach conservative principles,, but should also play offensive as well as defensive on political, moral and religious issues. Liberals cannot win the political wars on while fighting on multiple fronts, and playing defense has gotten old.

.....21st century political solutions for 21st century politics.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

Link:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1780888/posts

[goldstategop]

Liberalism is an absurd philosophy. I'd like to see an initiative submitted to the voters outlawing it - just to prompt discussion.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Niteranger68]

It's worth repeating: Every single argument used by the proponents of gay marriage work just as well to also support marriage between family members. They should be asked if they support incest.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

Moral absolutes ping!

[Jim Noble]

I have six, so I guess I'm good to go, huh?

[Sans-Culotte]

Another reminder that the issue is not whether homosexuals should be allowed to maary-it never was. This campaign of theirs is simply an attempt to destroy the institution of marriage, and ultimately, Chrisitanity itself.

[Domicile of Doom]

At some point when enough families are broken apart due too homosexual initiatives, I would imagine seeing people hanged from lightpoles. Just give it a few years.

[kinghorse]

Procreation and security for 51% of our population. Remember empowerment of women in the west is a fairly new development. And we have come a long way when you consider empowerment in the ME for instance is defined as the ability to prostitute oneself. That's the way a woman can chart her own course in the ME. Shakira Shakira.

[freespirited]

The measure would require couples to prove they can have children to get a marriage license.

Say what? The only way to prove it is to do it.

Also, what happens to couples with no biological chilren who adopt? Their marriages are annulled and they are entitled to no marital benefits for themselves or the children?

[wbill]

There are those that 'pooh-pooh'-ed the slippery slope idea of Gay Marriage. Guess they were wrong.

Although I must admit that I didn't see THIS one coming. Figured that the gay lobby would go for liberalization of marriage laws, rather than a more restrictive view of them.

[DPMD]

Try enforcing it. If the gay mafia wants a civil war, this is a good step in that directionl.

[dvwjr]

Well, as long as the 'gay couples' have to pro-create in that same three year period or have the legal underpinnings to their 'couple-ship' annulled - I guess that's fair...

dvwjr

[lentulusgracchus]

This campaign of theirs is simply an attempt to destroy the institution of marriage, and ultimately, Chrisitanity itself.

Another good guy gets it bump.

You're backed up by Michelangelo Signorile, gay polemicist extraordinaire and writer for The Village Voice. Google him up, you will find his steaming pile of a quote very quickly, in which he admits that "gay marriage" (quote marks are like condoms) is really a waystation on the road to trivializing, then abolishing marriage.

[Publius6961]

Right.
Let's give a half-dozen perverts the satisfaction of national publicity.

For attempting to "get even" with heterosexuals, and their ownership of the word 'marriage".

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

Or we could have taken the route of ignoring it and seeing if it gained momentum.

Or we can enter the discourse, refute their objections, and put them on the defensive - making them argue in favor of same-sex marriage - instead of letting them continually put conservatives on defense.

[tsowellfan]

I would think that conservative married couples would tend to wait to have children until they financially established themselves to be able to provide for that child more often than liberal married couples.

Personally, because of some medical problem my parents were married ten years before having their first child (me).

So, under this law, my parents would have been forced to abort my conception seven years before it took place.

How many other Freepers' parents would have been forced to have a pre-conceptual abortion?