Proposal: Have children or annul

Waterbury Republican-American ^ | February 6, 2007 | Rachel La Corte (A.P.)

[007girl]

"But what about a "woman's right to choose"?"

POST OF THE FREAKING DAY AWARD!

I'll second that!!!

[Old Professer]

You got it; they can't get married now, which makes them miserable, therefore they want everybody else to be miserable.

[dforest]

More ignorant pap by the Left Coast gay loonies. All made to side step the real issue of marriage being a union of a man and a woman. It is totally unnecessary and unnatural for PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX TO BE MARRIED. There are many heterosexual couples who cannot have children for physical reasons. What is with the 3 year limit. Why not 10?

[poobear]

"Actually I'm pointing out the irony of a Liberal forcing a woman to have a baby or face a consequence."

Oh, I got your point masgopguy and yes you've got to love the irony when you pointed out:

"What about a woman's right to choose"?

Someone has already seconded my POST OF THE FREAKING DAY AWARD! You Win!

[Sopater]

Related thread here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1779733/posts

[TBP]

Our birthrate is below replacement rate. That is one of the "justifications" for illegals and other liberl causes. It wouldn't be a bad thing if couples had more children.

Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.

[CottShop]

As I said, I'm not up on what he stands for- if you can show he is for the gay agenda- I'd appreciate knowing about it as it will mean I wouldn't vote for him.

[NathanR]

Calpernia, what is a Marriage Certificate issued by a Religious Institute. When I got married, I got a Marriage License from the Courthouse. I could have been married there by a clerk, or later by a judge, but we were married at home by a minister.

In New Jersey, were Marriage Licenses issued by churches, as well as the state? It makes no sense that the state will no longer recognize legal marriages that happened in the past. It is just stupid.

[Calpernia]

I had a Marriage License too. That is what is applied for (and is good for 6months) prior to having the marriage 'certified'. That is done by a Priest, Reverand, Rabbi, Judge, etc.

The Marriage Certificate Certifies that you are married. I was married in a Church, therefore, I have a certificate issued by my Reverand. My married certificate is issued by a religious institution (my church).

This is what is no longer recognized (legally) by the State of NJ.

Take a peak at the Division of Motor Vehicles:

http://www.state.nj.us/mvc/Licenses/DocumentSelector/doc_secondary.htm

A man doesn't need this document; but a woman does if she took her husband's name.

I took my husband's name. So I have to provide a paper trail. My marriage certificate in the eyes of NJ has been nullied.

[Calpernia]

Here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1687307/posts?page=4#4

Thru

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1687307/posts?page=37#37

[Romulus]

a ballot measure that would require heterosexual couples to have a child within three years or have their marriages annulled.

Our gay friends have an excellent point. What's marriage for, anyway? When the dominant paradigm of marriage in your culture is contraceptive, it's pretty hard to explain away the homosexuals' point: that socially we've already conceded the point that marriage is nothing more than cosy domesticity punctuated by periodic sterile sexual release. Insofar as contraception is taken as a given, most of the fine heterosexual couples holding their heads high in "conservative" (ha ha) circles are already living functionally gay lives.

[MHGinTN]

The point of this twisted legislation is to diminish the institution of marriage since degenerates cannot become 'normalized' through it. Degenerates are destroyers of civilization, not protectors.

[Romulus]

My point is that, seeing how precious little of the institution of marriage is left to destroy, there's a rich irony in so-called conservatives -- reducing the human body to an instrument for self-pleasure and refusing to produce another generation -- huffing and puffing about degenerates destroying civilisation.

Conservatives-in-name-only disgust me. I don't want to hear any more talking the talk until they start walking the walk.

[frogjerk]

Insofar as contraception is taken as a given, most of the fine heterosexual couples holding their heads high in "conservative" (ha ha) circles are already living functionally gay lives.

Amen to that. Telling God that you want no part in his creative gift is pretty messed up.

[Edgerunner]

Gotta show my gal...

[PeterFinn]

Anita Bryant was right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MEGoody]

but that isn't good enough for them- they want EVERYTHING married couples enjoy

Actually, they don't care about getting married. They want to destroy marriage. The fact that solid, two parent families exist is a slap in the face to them. It forces them to think about how perverted they really are.

[Kahonek]

"That's discriminatory. They should require ALL COUPLES to produce a child."

They are suggesting that all MARRIED couples be required to produce children. Gays can't be married in the state. It's the heart of their argument.

[BillyBoy]

>> 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." <<

>> Okay, let's raise taxes to 100% then. Two can play this game... <<

Indeed, we can this game if they want. Perhaps it's time we introduce amendments to all "civil union" bills that would REQUIRE ALL "consenting adults" entitlement to "marriage licenses" if they want it, including polygamous and incestuous relationships. After all, social progressives have long screamed that "consenting adults" have the right to do WHATEVER they want and we have no right to deny their "love". Wouldn't want to "discriminate" against guys who hump their sister or Joe Regliouscultmember and his 18 wives.

[CottShop]

Thanks I'll give em a read- Now, about htem colts