Proposition to prevent childless marriages

[softwareNerd]

This proposition won't go far, but it's quite amusing. Full marks for creativity, if nothing else.

Under [initiative 957 ], 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

“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 ...

[Inspector]

This is kind of like when the democrats raise draft re-instatement bills as some kind of "protest" against the war.

As with that, I don't appreciate when somebody toys with my life and freedom to "prove a point."

[Qwertz]

Don't get me started on 'gay politics.' This is not uncommon. I mean, there's rhetorical hyperbole, and then there's off-the-wall lunacy. This thoroughly reinforces my opinion that the 'gay rights movement' is its own worst enemy.

(I make the assumption that "proponents of same-sex marriage" are rightly considered part of the 'gay rights movement.' Given the diaphanous, ill-defined nature of the 'gay rights movement,' I don't think it is an entirely unreasonable assumption.)

-Q

[kufa]

As dumb as both sides of the argument of gay marraige are, it kind of makes sense that the gay rights people are doing this. It reminded me of the John Galt strike; the public proclaimed that the heroes of the world were not needed, so the heroes obeyed the creed and left.

[softwareNerd]

I agree that the "marriage is not for procreation" point is a good one to make. If I were a resident of Washington State, I would sign up for this proposal to be on the ballot, even though I wouldn't vote for it.