New, bizarre approach from same-sex "marriage" advocates

[Little-Acorn]

Just when you though same-sex "marriage" advocates couldn't get any weirder, this comes out of Washington state.

It's just another version of the old "pretend your opponents said something they didn't and then bash them for it" ploy - see the first line of the third paragraph in the article.

But couldn't these screwballs have come up with something that's at least a LITTLE believeable, however silly?

--------------------------------------

More Washington News | NWCN.com | News for Seattle, Washington

Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids

02:34 PM PST on Monday, February 5, 2007

KING5.com Staff and Associated Press

OLYMPIA, Wash. - An initiative filed by proponents of same-sex marriage would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriage annulled. Initiative 957 was filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance. That group was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage.

Under the initiative, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children in order to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriage would be subject to annulment. All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized" and people in those marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.

“For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation ... The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine," said WA-DOMA organizer Gregory Gadow in a printed statement. “If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage."

Supporters must gather more than 224,000 valid signatures by July 6 to put the initiative on the November ballot.

Opponents say the measure is another attack on traditional marriage, but supporters say the move is needed to have a discussion on the high court ruling.

Moderator's Warning:

Your thread title does not match the article title (red/bolded above) as required by *Breaking News* Rules and Guidelines

 

[Navy Pride]

Just when you though same-sex "marriage" advocates couldn't get any weirder, this comes out of Washington state.

It's just another version of the old "pretend your opponents said something they didn't and then bash them for it" ploy - see the first line of the third paragraph in the article.

But couldn't these screwballs have come up with something that's at least a LITTLE believeable, however silly?

--------------------------------------

More Washington News | NWCN.com | News for Seattle, Washington

Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids

02:34 PM PST on Monday, February 5, 2007

KING5.com Staff and Associated Press

OLYMPIA, Wash. - An initiative filed by proponents of same-sex marriage would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriage annulled. Initiative 957 was filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance. That group was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage.

Under the initiative, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children in order to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriage would be subject to annulment. All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized" and people in those marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.

“For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation ... The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine," said WA-DOMA organizer Gregory Gadow in a printed statement. “If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage."

Supporters must gather more than 224,000 valid signatures by July 6 to put the initiative on the November ballot.

Opponents say the measure is another attack on traditional marriage, but supporters say the move is needed to have a discussion on the high court ruling.

I heard about this and it seems the radical left and militant gays are helping turn us off not only to gay marriage but gay rights....

 

[Dezaad]

Just when you though same-sex "marriage" advocates couldn't get any weirder, this comes out of Washington state.

It's just another version of the old "pretend your opponents said something they didn't and then bash them for it" ploy - see the first line of the third paragraph in the article.

But couldn't these screwballs have come up with something that's at least a LITTLE believeable, however silly?

It is silly, I'll grant that. But, it is no sillier than the reasoning behind the Washington State ruling. The measure mirrors the ruling, in fact.

The Supreme Court of Washington State explained the reasons for its ruling as being that marriage is for the purpose of creating families. The initiative forces people who agree with the ruling to put up or shut up: If you can't create a family then you have no business being married.

What the initiative points out (almost satirically) is that marriage isn't about creating families. Many people who get married never intend to have children, after all, and many of them can't. Yet, they are allowed to marry. Why? Why should they be allowed to marry?

There are many good reasons they should be allowed to marry that have nothing to do with having children. People who advocate gay marriage want it for those very same reasons.

 

[Gibberish]

I heard about this and it seems the radical left and militant gays are helping turn us off not only to gay marriage but gay rights....

Radicals tend to do that. It's a good thing they aren't the majority of the social group.

 

[rathi]

This bill is used to counter the argument that marriage is for raising families, thus banning gay marriage. I dislike using our legislative process for anything other than serious legislation, so I will condemn this act. However, their point is still correct in principle.

 

[Dr_Patrick]

Just when you though same-sex "marriage" advocates couldn't get any weirder, this comes out of Washington state.

It's just another version of the old "pretend your opponents said something they didn't and then bash them for it" ploy - see the first line of the third paragraph in the article.

But couldn't these screwballs have come up with something that's at least a LITTLE believeable, however silly?

I actually have heard that argument from many Conservatives. That isn't to say , however, that all Conservatives have argued that point or even believe it. They definitely aren't making it up, though. I do think it's a little ridiculous to propose something like this just to prove a point that should already be blatantly obvious.

 

[Ikari]

It is silly, I'll grant that. But, it is no sillier than the reasoning behind the Washington State ruling. The measure mirrors the ruling, in fact.

The Supreme Court of Washington State explained the reasons for its ruling as being that marriage is for the purpose of creating families. The initiative forces people who agree with the ruling to put up or shut up: If you can't create a family then you have no business being married.

What the initiative points out (almost satirically) is that marriage isn't about creating families. Many people who get married never intend to have children, after all, and many of them can't. Yet, they are allowed to marry. Why? Why should they be allowed to marry?

There are many good reasons they should be allowed to marry that have nothing to do with having children. People who advocate gay marriage want it for those very same reasons.

I like it, I think it's funny and points to the idiocy of the argument that marriage is for kids. The entire problem here sprung up after the Civil War when the government instituted the marriage license, before that no such thing was needed. And it was originally used as a method to prevent inter-racial marriage. The real solution here (which I don't see many people endorsing) is the removal of government from marriage. Leave it to the individual churches and that's the end of it. Government, as per usual, only makes things more complicated. If we are going to continue with the Marriage License being handed out by the government so that the government dictates the contract of marriage, than we can not deny same-sex marriage as their right to contract can not be infringed upon.

 

[disneydude]

I like it, I think it's funny and points to the idiocy of the argument that marriage is for kids. The entire problem here sprung up after the Civil War when the government instituted the marriage license, before that no such thing was needed. And it was originally used as a method to prevent inter-racial marriage. The real solution here (which I don't see many people endorsing) is the removal of government from marriage. Leave it to the individual churches and that's the end of it. Government, as per usual, only makes things more complicated. If we are going to continue with the Marriage License being handed out by the government so that the government dictates the contract of marriage, than we can not deny same-sex marriage as their right to contract can not be infringed upon.

I agree that it is kind of a silly initiative. However, time and again anti-gay rights folks have argued that the "compelling state interest" in a state prohibiting gay marriage is that marriage is to be promoted for procreation.
This people will run from the debate when you bring up limitations for marriage on infertile couples, old couples (past child rearing age) or couples who simply choose not to have children. Why? Because they have no answers to these questions because their logic collapses.
There is no legitimate state interest in prohibiting gay marriage. I have yet to see anyone post a "legitimate" state interest. "Tradition" is not a legitimate state interest, nor is religion.

 

[Kandahar]

I heard about this and it seems the radical left and militant gays are helping turn us off not only to gay marriage but gay rights....

So because a few morons do this, you're less likely to support gay rights across the board? Tell me Navy Pride, when Al Sharpton says something stupid on TV, do you get the urge to put on a white sheet and burn crosses? How is this any different?

 

[imprtnrd]

I agree with Deezad, and Kandahar. In most states, a gay couple can't adopt and they have no basis for that either, b/c it is not proven that it messes up a kids life. But STR8 adults keep abusing there own kids. What's wrong with this picture? mmmmmm.

 

[Just Me 2]

This only deflects from the real issues to bad the people that put it out don't see that.

 

[RightinNYC]

Just when you though same-sex "marriage" advocates couldn't get any weirder, this comes out of Washington state.

It's just another version of the old "pretend your opponents said something they didn't and then bash them for it" ploy - see the first line of the third paragraph in the article.

But couldn't these screwballs have come up with something that's at least a LITTLE believeable, however silly?

--------------------------------------

You seem to be mistaken about the purpose of this bill.

It's not being pushed in an attempt to pretend that its the conservatives who are supporting it, its being pushed in an attempt to highlight the fact that one of the main arguments made by supporters of traditional marriage is completely bunk.

It does a good job of that. Kudos to whoever came up with this idea.