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.
Don't love the irony?
Is there even an "annulment" statute in state law?
That is a law of unintended consequences I'm trying to get my State Rep. to take into consideration. The end game for Gay Marriage proponents isn't the recognition of Gay Marriages but the non-recognition of marriages performed in Churches that won't marry Gays.
Boy are these people out there. If they think they're winning any friends with this idiotic initiative, they're sadly mistaken.
that's a misconception- Rudy has never been for gay marriage- just for the rights of civil unions. Most states are for those rights as they do afford true RIGHTS- not marriage perks that heteros have- Gay marriage folks think that marriage perks are rights and that is false- they are perks of marriage. Civil unions laready have all the rights that EVERY person enjoys- but that isn't eno8ugh for them evidently- they won't be happy until they totally erode the concept of marriage and the Holy Institution of marriage.
The following link is a signature link and does not relate to this thread http://sacredscoop.com
There is something like this in NJ now.
Since the New Jersey Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage, there is an obvious oops that no one has stopped to think about.
The only way to make homosexual and heterosexual marriages equal is under a Civil Marriage.
This means, the state of NJ no longer recognizes Marriage certificates issued by religious entities.
As per the office of Vital Statistics, couples must apply for a CIVIL marriage license and remarry by a judge.
One interesting catch to that. The marriage certificate does not get post dated to the original date of marriage.
The Department of Motor Vehicles no longer accepts marriage certificates from religious institutions to show a woman's name change from maiden to married. I'm still trying to figure out how to get my driver's license renewed. I can't show a history of my name change by using my religious issued Marriage Certificate.
Typical leftist "thought" process. FWIW, I'm of the opinion that liberals should prove their ability to actually think before they are allowed to introduce resolutions.
Actually, there's a legal definition of annulment that has nothing to do with the Church, Catholic or otherwise. Perhaps you just aren't aware of the broader legal definition.
What is unintended consequences? The state not recognizing religious issued marriage certificates? If they stop recognizing them as legal documents, then marriages are nullified in the eyes of the state.
Oh, c'mon, what the hell is the difference, really. Rudy is pro-gay agenda.
Good one!
Of course, this will never get enough signatures to make it to the ballot, but it's purpose is to make people think: "Is marriage only for the production of children, or does it have other purposes as well, that are of benefit to those never able to, or intending to, have children?"
A marriage can be legally annuled as well.
Social conservatives had NEVER screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation. How surprising that homosexual activists would LIE.
LOL Wouldn't they just croak if this back-fired on them and the measure was passed? You'd never see anyone back-peddle so fast in your life.
I hope the people of Washington pass it just to make them all have heart attacks. It can always be repealed later.
correct contemplator- that's exactly their argument- that if folks don't have children in three years, then it would be illegal to dissallow gays marriage because they contend that marriage is based solely on procreation - but htis is a lie. As you pointed out, it is about the sanctity, and htis is another key area that the gay folk are attacking as well.
But as one poster also pointed out, there is another issue they will have to overcome- the fact that children are much better off with a mom and pop- and this is fact. There may be soem exceptions of kids that do ok in two pop or mom families, but the research is overwhelming that it is NOT a healthy environment for kids.
This speration of church and state argument though is going to be the kicker in all this- I guess it could be argued that judges are set up by God and so must rule judiciously in a moral manner- not sure how that would play out though in court.
Or passing "Hate Crimes" bills that would criminalize groups like the Knights of Columbus for sponsoring the Marriage Amendment Initiative Petition in MA. My Rep. thinks that if Gay Marriage stays as is then that will be the end of it. Oh no. The retribution against the foes of Gay Marriage will need to be ruthless.
There are civil annulments in most (if not all) states.
LOL- great point-
>>>My Rep. thinks that if Gay Marriage stays as is then that will be the end of it. Oh no. The retribution against the foes of Gay Marriage will need to be ruthless.
Did you read my post? Or did you not understand it?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1780165/posts?page=29#29
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.