Joker Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 Ballot initiative would require married couples to "show proof of procreation" The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance seeks to defend equal marriage in this state by challenging the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling on Andersen v. King County. This decision, given in July 2006, declared that a “legitimate state interest” allows the Legislature to limit marriage to those couples able to have and raise children together. Because of this “legitimate state interest,” it is permissible to bar same-sex couples from legal marriage. The way we are challenging Andersen is unusual: using the initiative, we are working to put the Court’s ruling into law. We will do this through three initiatives. The first would make procreation a requirement for legal marriage. The second would prohibit divorce or legal separation when there are children. The third would make the act of having a child together the legal equivalent of a marriage ceremony. ... If passed by Washington voters, the Defense of Marriage Initiative would: add the phrase, “who are capable of having children with one another” to the legal definition of marriage; require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled; require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as "unrecognized;" establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits. ------------------------------------------------------------------ I think... I think what I'm reading is that if you get married in the state of Washington (and this measure were to pass) you have three years to have a child or your marriage is automatically anulled. I hope the folks in Washington are smarter than this measure would have me believe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 Wait... what? I can't marry an infertile woman? Or, for that matter, I've had tons of unprotected sex and have yet to produce offspring, maybe it's me who's shooting blanks... so, I can't get married in Washington? You know, it seems like these fucking 'family values' types are doing all they can to seperate marriage from the concept of love... and they seem to be doing it in Washington which, I am not ashamed to say, takes me COMPLETELY by surprise. This is the state that didn't have any sort of anti-beastiality laws until a year ago or so when that dude died from getting his ass split by a horse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxcarrapist Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 you gotta be shittin me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunt double Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 wow, im glad to see lawmakers spending so much money to prevent same sex marriage. because that is totally the biggest problem in america today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Pubes Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 that's pretty fucking awesome-town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joker Posted February 10, 2007 Author Share Posted February 10, 2007 The more I read it and the more I think about it there's no way this measure will pass. I know there's some religious crazies out there who will vote for this but I think the majority of the state has to find this measure retarded. Especially the "no divorce or legal seperation when there are children" segment. With the high rate of divorce in this country, that little segement alone will keep the measure from passing. Because you know married folks who vote and dreaming of the day they can leave their worse half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 that's pretty fucking awesome-town. ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ski Mask Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 fortunately the state of washington has not yet lost its mind. All this initiative means is that this group got enough washington residents to sign a petition, and now they can force a vote. the vote doesnt stand a snowballs chance in hell of passing, but they can force the vote anyways. this is in no way somthing that was brough up by lawmakers, this is just some wacko group with enough followers to pass the petition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10KorpsePileUp Posted February 11, 2007 Share Posted February 11, 2007 That’s absolutely insane. So, that would mean that anyone who has children from multiple partners would be a polygamist. As for couples who cannot conceive a child together and get an egg or sperm donation, where the hell do the lines of who marries whom lie? I have no second thoughts about this not passing, but it still worries me that enough people signed the petition to get this whole thing started. The number of signatures required for initiatives in WA is: 224,880 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joker Posted February 11, 2007 Author Share Posted February 11, 2007 I agree... this will definitely not pass but the numbers are kinda scary. Close to a quarter of a million people signed a petition to get this measure on the ballot. WA state's population is roughly 6 million... of whom you can assume only half vote. I have to wonder how many voters who didn't sign the petition would vote for something as insane as this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishcleaninglady Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 this is beyond retarded. who cares who gets married? when the divorce rate is 50% anyway, what does that tell us about marriage in our society anyway? Good point: my friend just got married to a guy that she was dating for 2 weeks, ok. now we all know how that will probably turn out. my sister, who has been with her gf and for 9 nears and loves her to death cannot get married to her. makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cracked Ass Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Seattle is an island of sanity in a pretty loony state. I remember a billboard on I-5 about ten years ago, well south of Seattle, on some dude's lawn, something like STOP BABY MACHINES AND WELFARE CHEATS and other such ranting. Shit was full size. I think the real issue is separation of church and state. If some wacko cult wants to withhold their narrow brand of marriage from certain couples, that's fine. Why would a couple continue to belong to a church that discriminates against them? That shit baffles me, all the fools trying to get approval to ordain gay priests and bishops against formal resistance. FUCK THE CHURCH THAT HATES YOU, start your own church that upholds your real values. As for the state side of the issue, I believe there should be a very lax standard (i.e. inclusive of gay and other nontraditional couples) for a basic, official state-recognized marriage for tax status and legal purposes, which no cult or church can fuck with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.