Homosexual Militancy

[MachZer0]

Washington Initiative Would Force Married Couples To Have Kids Or Have Their Marriage Annulled

Olympia, Washington

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.

 

[JustOneWay]

If marriage is for the sake of bearing and raising children and is a reason to deny homosexual marriage, then I say the heterosexuals start having kids or your marriages are meaningless and should be anulled

 

[SimplyMe]

One of the primary arguments of those fighting same-sex marriage in the courts is that procreation is the reason for marriage -- that is the reason banning gay marriage does not violate the 14th amendment. So, why are you upset that someone is proposing a law (one that will never pass) to ensure marriage is about procreation? After all, those who choose not to procreate can, like same-sex couples, get religious marriages and then go to lawyers and draw up papers to get rights somewhat similar to marriage. If it's good enough for gay couples, why is it not good enough for those sinners who refuse "to go forth and multiply"?

Further, if this is "homosexual militancy" (proposing a law that will not pass simply to make a point) what does this say of the conservative Christians that pass Constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage? Seems to me that would make them ultra-militant fundies.

 

[trunks2k]

Further, if this is "homosexual militancy" (proposing a law that will not pass simply to make a point) what does this say of the conservative Christians that pass Constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage? Seems to me that would make them ultra-militant fundies.[/FONT]

I found that funny as well. Gays are denied the right to marry the one they love, discriminated against, have been getting harrassed for years, etc. Yet they're the ones being called militant.

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

good for them.

 

[MachZer0]

This will certainly put a lot of pressure on polygamists, once their chosen lifestyle is legalized, to produce lots of children.

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

This will certainly put a lot of pressure on polygamists, once their chosen lifestyle is legalized, to produce lots of children.

what do polygamists have to do with anything?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Washington Initiative Would Force Married Couples To Have Kids Or Have Their Marriage Annulled

Olympia, Washington

This is, simply put, BRILLIANT! The WA-Defense of Marriage Alliance successfully coopted the language of the Conservative right by declaring themselves to be in "defense of marriage", AND they are feeding the conservatives a dose of their own medicine.

I am moved by excellent activism. THIS is what it's all about.

I think people take stands that carry with them a "monkey's paw", the old "Be careful of what you wish for, for you may just get it".

The conservative "anti-gay marriage" groups have to take a logically self-consistent stand to defend their point, but they must allow that that stand may just result in something they don't like.

to the WA-DOMA

 

[Rik]

What do you call 100 heavily armed lesbians?

"Militia Ethridge!"

 

[MachZer0]

what do polygamists have to do with anything?

If people ewant to open up marriage to all sorts of diverse relationships, polygamy would certainly have to be legalized. If this law passes, polygamists would have to produce children from each spouse.

 

[rosesandravens]

If people ewant to open up marriage to all sorts of diverse relationships, polygamy would certainly have to be legalized. If this law passes, polygamists would have to produce children from each spouse.

That's like saying "If people want to open up marriage to heterosexual couples, homosexual marriage would certainly have to be legalized."

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

If people ewant to open up marriage to all sorts of diverse relationships, polygamy would certainly have to be legalized. If this law passes, polygamists would have to produce children from each spouse.

polygamy isn't a legally recognized marriage. they wouldn't be forced by law to reproduce or annul any of those relationships if they are engaged in them

red herring

 

[MachZer0]

This is, simply put, BRILLIANT! The WA-Defense of Marriage Alliance successfully coopted the language of the Conservative right by declaring themselves to be in "defense of marriage", AND they are feeding the conservatives a dose of their own medicine.

I am moved by excellent activism. THIS is what it's all about.

I think people take stands that carry with them a "monkey's paw", the old "Be careful of what you wish for, for you may just get it".

The conservative "anti-gay marriage" groups have to take a logically self-consistent stand to defend their point, but they must allow that that stand may just result in something they don't like.

to the WA-DOMA

Interestingly, the initiative, if passed, would permanently ban homosexual marriages. That goes along with what you are saying and is "cutting off your nose to spite your face".

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

Interestingly, the initiative, if passed, would permanently ban homosexual marriages. That goes along with what you are saying and is "cutting off your nose to spite your face".

the initiative is not meant to pass, and if it was passed would quickly be found unconstitutional. that's part of the point of it.

 

[MachZer0]

the initiative is not meant to pass, and if it was passed would quickly be found unconstitutional. that's part of the point of it.

Interesting that this law would be unconstitutional while a ban on homosexual marriage would be constitutional

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

Interesting that this law would be unconstitutional while a ban on homosexual marriage would be constitutional

bans on homosexual marriage AREN'T constitutional. those making laws know that. that's why they're trying to get Constitutional ammendments passed.

next

 

[MachZer0]

bans on homosexual marriage AREN'T constitutional. those making laws know that. that's why they're trying to get Constitutional ammendments passed.

next

To the contrary, a Constitutional amendment is sought because state courts are overruling the will of the people by throwing out perfectly legal laws against homosexual marriage. The courts are making the laws in other words.

 

[AirPo]

What do you call 100 heavily armed lesbians?

"Militia Ethridge!"

That's funny. Did you come up with that?

 

[kermit]

To the contrary, a Constitutional amendment is sought because state courts are overruling the will of the people by throwing out perfectly legal laws against homosexual marriage. The courts are making the laws in other words.

That's a bit disingenuous. The laws are being thrown out
by courts on a constitutional basis.

Just because you don't agree with courts doesn't make their decisions wrong. You are not a constitutional lawyer.

 

[The Nihilist]

To the contrary, a Constitutional amendment is sought because state courts are overruling the will of the people by throwing out perfectly legal laws against homosexual marriage. The courts are making the laws in other words.

That's right. The Supreme Court invented the 14th Amendment.