[3AngelaD]

They are really pushing their luck here.

[edcoil]

Attack of the gay brigade!

[SoldierDad]

This is the best they can do to counter the argument that the best type of home for children is one with a mother and a father? Talk about simpletons.

[o_zarkman44]

WTF!!!

Better pass a law stopping abortion while at it.

[Fierce Allegiance]

Giuliani and his gay agenda types would love to push this on a national level!

[frogjerk]

All other marriages in the state would be defined as "unrecognized," making

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.

[Southside_Chicago_Republican]

This group calls itself the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance??? They're not just absurd, but Orwellian.

[Tzimisce]

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

[Aliska]

WTF?

[xuberalles]

Gays are absolutely insane...as if anyone will see this as anything other than sour grapes. Pathetic.

[contemplator]

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.

[katieanna]

"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.

[Antoninus]

Boy are these people out there. If they think they're winning any friends with this idiotic initiative, they're sadly mistaken.

[DustyMoment]

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.

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.

[hunter112]

They're taking on the "defense of marriage" crowd by their principal argument: marriage is primarily for the production of children.

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?"

[VRWCmember]

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

Social conservatives had NEVER screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation. How surprising that homosexual activists would LIE.

[MEGoody]

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

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.

[Alouette]

require heterosexual couples to have a child within three years or have their marriages annulled.

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

[wbill]

To those that pooh-poohed the idea of 'gay marriage' as a 'Slippery Slope'....you shall reap what you sow.

[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?