Married heterosexual couples required to have children or face annulment

[DeadPoolX 9]

OLYMPIA, Wash. —

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."

Cheryl Haskins, executive director of Allies for Marriage and Children, said opponents of same-sex marriage want only to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

"Some of those unions produce children and some of them don't," she said.

Original Source

[Ban Hammer 14,436]

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The group said the proposal was aimed at "social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation."

Cheryl Haskins, executive director of Allies for Marriage and Children, said opponents of same-sex marriage want only to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

"Some of those unions produce children and some of them don't," she said.

Original Source

Love the backpedaling. Bigotry disguised as traditional 'family values'...BS.

[Ban Hammer 14,436]

The group said the proposal was aimed at "social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation."

Cheryl Haskins, executive director of Allies for Marriage and Children, said opponents of same-sex marriage want only to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

"Some of those unions produce children and some of them don't," she said.

Original Source

Love the backpedaling. Bigotry disguised as traditional 'family values'...BS.

steven, it's more like some people are unable to have children and this law would affect them negatively, no matter what their sexual preference. i can't see any law requiring someone to reproduce within a certain time frame or else have their marriage annuled.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The group said the proposal was aimed at "social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation."

Cheryl Haskins, executive director of Allies for Marriage and Children, said opponents of same-sex marriage want only to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

"Some of those unions produce children and some of them don't," she said.

Original Source

Love the backpedaling. Bigotry disguised as traditional 'family values'...BS.

steven, it's more like some people are unable to have children and this law would affect them negatively, no matter what their sexual preference. i can't see any law requiring someone to reproduce within a certain time frame or else have their marriage annuled.

...and some heterosexual couples choose not to have children which makes the same-sex marriage opponent's argument (that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation) pointless. It's a clever way to point out the bigotry behind it.

[Ban Hammer 14,436]

The group said the proposal was aimed at "social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation."

Cheryl Haskins, executive director of Allies for Marriage and Children, said opponents of same-sex marriage want only to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

"Some of those unions produce children and some of them don't," she said.

Original Source

Love the backpedaling. Bigotry disguised as traditional 'family values'...BS.

steven, it's more like some people are unable to have children and this law would affect them negatively, no matter what their sexual preference. i can't see any law requiring someone to reproduce within a certain time frame or else have their marriage annuled.

...and some heterosexual couples choose not to have children which makes the same-sex marriage opponent's argument (that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation) pointless. It's a clever way to point out the bigotry behind it.

not really. it's fishing on their part. any trick in the book to get a gay marriage recognized, eh? that's best left up to a state vote by the people, not by trying to sneak in some law that could render someone's marriage null and void due to genetics.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The group said the proposal was aimed at "social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation."

Cheryl Haskins, executive director of Allies for Marriage and Children, said opponents of same-sex marriage want only to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

"Some of those unions produce children and some of them don't," she said.

Original Source

Love the backpedaling. Bigotry disguised as traditional 'family values'...BS.

steven, it's more like some people are unable to have children and this law would affect them negatively, no matter what their sexual preference. i can't see any law requiring someone to reproduce within a certain time frame or else have their marriage annuled.

...and some heterosexual couples choose not to have children which makes the same-sex marriage opponent's argument (that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation) pointless. It's a clever way to point out the bigotry behind it.

not really. it's fishing on their part. any trick in the book to get a gay marriage recognized, eh? that's best left up to a state vote by the people, not by trying to sneak in some law that could render someone's marriage null and void due to genetics.

Those who've proposed the legislation are not intending such a law would pass and it won't.

[Ban Hammer 14,436]

Those who've proposed the legislation are not intending such a law would pass and it won't.

so let's just waste more time and money on a non-starter, shall we?

[sereia 0]

not really. it's fishing on their part. any trick in the book to get a gay marriage recognized, eh? that's best left up to a state vote by the people, not by trying to sneak in some law that could render someone's marriage null and void due to genetics.

amen. and what about married couples who choose to wait more than three years because they simply can't afford to have babies yet? or people who don't think they would make good parents? this law is ridiculous. i'd never vote for it. i'm amazed they got that many signatures! probably all gays and far leftys. (well who else would it be?) haha

Edited February 6, 2007 by abdounjen

[Jenn! 918]

It's a clever way to point out the bigotry behind it.

Of course it's not intended to pass, just making a statement.

probably all gays and far leftys. (well who else would it be?) haha

Oh, the horror!

[featherB 1]

It's a clever way to point out the bigotry behind it.

Of course it's not intended to pass, just making a statement.

And it makes it very well, too. Of course the suggestion that a marriage is invalid if a couple don't have children is ridiculous. That's the whole point. I've always thought that, every time I've heard that 'marriage is a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation' line trotted out again and again: so your marriage isn't really a marriage if you don't have children? Or if you had them (shock, horror) before you married? Yeah, right.

Edited February 6, 2007 by featherB

[sereia 0]

It's a clever way to point out the bigotry behind it.

Of course it's not intended to pass, just making a statement.

probably all gays and far leftys. (well who else would it be?) haha

Oh, the horror!

[mybackpages 0]

They way some react to this issue just irks me. How can anyone just dismiss marriage equality when they see its impact it has on real families? How is it not discriminaton? Whatever ones personal view on homosexuality or how one defines marriage, how does that legitimize the right of the majority to take away the rights of the minority?

There are 1,338 federal rights and benefits provided to couples through civil marriage. Immigration is one of these.

[ILIKEALLCAPS 0]

The group said the proposal was aimed at "social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation."

Cheryl Haskins, executive director of Allies for Marriage and Children, said opponents of same-sex marriage want only to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

"Some of those unions produce children and some of them don't," she said.

Original Source

Love the backpedaling. Bigotry disguised as traditional 'family values'...BS.

steven, it's more like some people are unable to have children and this law would affect them negatively, no matter what their sexual preference. i can't see any law requiring someone to reproduce within a certain time frame or else have their marriage annuled.

...and some heterosexual couples choose not to have children which makes the same-sex marriage opponent's argument (that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation) pointless. It's a clever way to point out the bigotry behind it.

not really. it's fishing on their part. any trick in the book to get a gay marriage recognized, eh? that's best left up to a state vote by the people, not by trying to sneak in some law that could render someone's marriage null and void due to genetics.

Yeah! The nerve of people saying that you can't be married just because you're physically incapable, or choose not to, have children. After all, if you don't have children, all you're left with is a loving, comitted relationship between two people. And then you might just realize that you could have that kind of relationship as a same sex couple. And then it's anarchy.

[Mags 112]

Well, I already have a child from a previous relationship. Neither Larry or I want another. Ever. EVER!!!