Homosexual group propses heterosexual marriages annulled if no children in 3 years.

[ScarySquirrel]

(Olympia, Washington) 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" underlying 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 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."
A different way to approach the problem, but it makes a point. I like it.

[QueenAdrock]

But what if you try for kids but are physically unable to reproduce? Does that count?

[abcdefz]

Yeah -- I thought that was kinda funny.

[ScarySquirrel]

But what if you try for kids but are physically unable to reproduce? Does that count?
If you can't make kids, you can't be married. That's what they're saying.

[QueenAdrock]

Yeah, but you won't know unless you get married and try. Unless you're immoral and have pre-maritals. That's something you can't prove until you try, am I right?

Edit: Just saw the thing about annulment.

I kan reed. LOLS.

[ScarySquirrel]

Yeah. I don't think they legitimately expect it to pass... they still have to get some 250k signatures to make it on the ballot or something, but it makes its point well, I think.

[Nivvie]

So, you get married, try for kids, they don't come along, (stress is one of the biggest causes of infertility, and there's nothing like putting a clock on a situation). You get it annulled, change your name back, get for a new passport and wait for new bank cards, etc, then BAM, pregnant a few weeks later now the clock is off. Civil servants and clerical officers everywhere would be overworked with all the name changes.

Passports cost a fortunes, wedding services aren't free either, and the government makes enough already. Not that it would happen here as we have civil partnerships so no one cares anymore.

[Yeti]

We did not have our boy until the 5th year of our marriage.

[Nivvie]

We did not have our boy until the 5th year of our marriage.


Yeah, we were married four years before a child.
This could well push people into breeding who are not emotionally or finacially ready. Catholics who won't bonk without a wedding band, for example.

Of course it'll never happen.
I can see heartbroken couples sobbing into each other's shoulders on news programs as their annullment looms....

[QueenAdrock]

I think it's meant to be ridiculous, to show people how dumb it is that they use the "Marriage is solely for procreation" excuse against gays. I know plenty of couples that don't want kids but want to get married, and they're making the point of "Well, then why should THEY be allowed to get married?"

It's pretty funny, actually.

[paul jones]

the world's gone too weird

[wanton wench]

whats the point here??? i think i'm missing something. are they promoting the making of more babies (like we need more people in the world) or are they tring to make all marriages equal (which is all in perception)???

i think we should just get rid of marriage all together...then everyone can just love everyone :)

[Yeti]

The homosexual group that proposed this obviously thinks it is funny. They don't realize that many couples have issues with infertility. How would they know? They are too busy sword fighting and shaving each other's bearded clams.:eek: Seriously though, this group is not helping their cause, only alienating people that support everyones right to be married.

The gay community should not breech the subject of procreation because they can adopt, have invitro-fertilization procedures and surrogates. Although, I did hear about a gay man popping a baby out of his poopshoot. It looked like a gerbil and he named him Richard Gere.

[jabumbo]

i think we should just get rid of marriage all together...then everyone can just love everyone :)


the world would turn into one giant make out party

[wanton wench]

see thats my point. this is the answer to world peace. i mean really, who is not happy while making out :D

[DandyFop]

Um, no I don't believe it's a "funny" thing. It's about making a point. They are saying that many people say two men being together is against nature and what is supposed to be, since it should be that two opposite sexes come together to mate and reproduce. So they are saying, that if someone can't reproduce in a heterosexual relationship, should they be given the same treatment as the homosexuals who are not reproducing either?

I'm hoping most people understood it from the beginning...

[QueenAdrock]

Dammit people, they're being satirical. Like if Colbert were in an interview and the person said "We need to protect the sanctity of marriage!" And he said "I agree. And why stop there? We need to start sterilizing the gays so they won't ever be able to pass on their gay genes."

Would any single person here think that Colbert's being serious? Or would you think "He's being ridiculous to make a point" ? That's EXACTLY what these people are doing. Someone said "Marriage is meant for procreation," and they said "You're absolutely right. And while we're at it, why don't we force people who don't give birth in 3 years to have annulments?" They don't actually believe that should be passed, they're doing it to make a point. They don't expect it to get passed (hello, they live in a hetero-centric society, how the hell WOULD this get passed?). They're showing the ridiculousness of the "Marriage = procreation" statement.

[abcdefz]

Yep. It's entirely possible now to make a deadly serious point using humor. We have the technology.














































I'm hoping most people understood it from the beginning...

[DandyFop]

Dammit people, they're being satirical.

Yes, what I meant by not being funny is that they're not trying to be hurtful towards people who have problems with fertility.

[QueenAdrock]

^Yeah, it wasn't aimed at you, I just hit reply and took a while to respond, by then you had posted. :)

[Bob]

i wouldn't really call it satirical, they're just making a point. they're not proposing it to because they legitimately want this to be the law, they're calling attention to the absurdity of the justifications against gay marriage. one of the main ones offered is that gay couples can't reproduce; well, neither can infertile couples, so if you're going to apply the law consistently, they shouldn't be allowed to legally marry either. but they are. so clearly there's something else going on, and the "lol they can't have kids" argument is just a smokescreen. these guys are calling attention to that fact

nobody actually wants this to be law, but nobody's trying to be funny. they're just pressing the legislature to be consistent with its justifications, or admit that they're phony

[hpdrifter]

Washington is so enlightened.

[Johnny Railroad]

Jagshemash !

If it`s an part of an Homosexuell lifestyle ? It`s a Nischt Nischt !

Oh yeah last night I have Sex with this Brazilian gay ... he was so cute !