NationStates Jolt Archive

A ballot measure (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-gay-marriage-washington,0,2316182.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines) introduced in Washington state would require heterosexual couples to have a child within three years or have their marriages annulled.

Seems like a good idea to me. If people aren't getting married to reproduce, then it's a mockery of what God intended.

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.

What.

The.

FUCK?!

:eek:

What.

The.

FUCK?!

:eek:
Seconded.

*flashes in*

It was Sim Circus' idea.
Seriously.


*flashes out*


BTW - it's probably an ugly scientist measure or something like that - some of that BS that "Savage" Weiner was blabbing about a year or two back. :)

Hehe... I like the idea. Sure it's absurd, but so is denying people the right to marry based on sexual preference.

pure and absolute brilliance. If the religious right claims that marriage is an institution for bringing children in the world, surely they can not reject the idea that marriage benefits should only go to those who conceive.

just shows what bunch of dickheads they are

God I hope this doesn't pass. If me and Kay get married, and we move back to her home state (which is WA) then jeez. I don't want to reproduce because Gov. Co. told me to, I want to reproduce because I want to bring another life into this world, and I want to complete the family that Kay and I have started through marriage. I really do hope that this doesn't pass.

God I hope this doesn't pass. If me and Kay get married, and we move back to her home state (which is WA) then jeez. I don't want to reproduce because Gov. Co. told me to, I want to reproduce because I want to bring another life into this world, and I want to complete the family that Kay and I have started through marriage. I really do hope that this doesn't pass.

of course it won't pass. Read the article. Even the people who promote it agree that it's an absolutly rediculous law. It's a political manuever, aimed at attacking those who say that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because marriage is about procreation, but don't support laws to make marriage about procreation.

of course it won't pass...

I don't know.... could be a lot of heteros in 3 year old marriages looking for any way out they can...

I don't know.... could be a lot of heteros in 3 year old marriages looking for any way out they can...

Divorce.

Divorce.

which leads to an awful split of property, which anullment does not.

which leads to an awful split of property, which anullment does not.

What is the umm, statue of limitations on anullments?

What is the umm, statue of limitations on anullments?

statute of limitations. A statute is a law codified by the legislative. A statute of limitations is, basically, a law that limits the time certain legal actions can take place. It is, literally, a statute of limitations (a law that places limits).

Sorry, little annoyance of mine.

And it is, quite literally, whatever the law says it is, for anulment, typically not very long.

Somewhere in Washington.....


Sorry honey-baby, but the gaddam gubmint says we can't be married no more! You know I love ya as much as the first day we wed. In fact, I love you even more now that you've put on so much weight and won't leave the trailer. But we don't have a choice... Big Brother will crush us if we don't part. I shall think of you always and miss you terribly.... um ... Could you move your stuff out by this weekend, I'm having some people over.

statute of limitations. A statute is a law codified by the legislative. A statute of limitations is, basically, a law that limits the time certain legal actions can take place. It is, literally, a statute of limitations (a law that places limits).

Sorry, little annoyance of mine.

And it is, quite literally, whatever the law says it is, for anulment, typically not very long.

Hmmm

*goes off to check North Carolina's laws and Washington's laws*

Best idea ever.

A ballot measure[/URL] introduced in Washington state would require heterosexual couples to have a child within three years or have their marriages annulled.

Seems like a good idea to me. If people aren't getting married to reproduce, then it's a mockery of what God intended.

Why should the state care about what two married people are doing?
Oh, and by the way, by that policy, all women above age 50/55 are automatically divorced.
Isn't that a weeny bit against the Constitution?

Why should the state care about what two married people are doing?
Oh, and by the way, by that policy, all women above age 50/55 are automatically divorced.
Isn't that a weeny bit against the Constitution?

There's this thing called reading comprehension. Use it.

I don't think this is taking it nearly far enough. People shouldn't be allowed to adopt, and they most certainly shouldn't defile the holy tradition of marriage if they do so anyway. And couples with bastards? Theyy should be hauled off to the nearest church & wed at gunpoint. Think of the children! What kind of role model would big brother be, without terrorising people?
And divorced couples with children? I say tough fnuggling (because certain words need to be abolished) luck, if you've started new families. You should never have divorced your no-good partner. Not it's the firing squad or you remarry.

Consequences! There need to be consequences! Never fnuggling mind marriage, people need to learn they can't live with this government! And if this doesn't work, let's nuke every mnad suburb on the continent! Can I get a Haleluja!

Schrodinger would be proud

Why should the state care about what two married people are doing?
Oh, and by the way, by that policy, all women above age 50/55 are automatically divorced.
Isn't that a weeny bit against the Constitution?

Well they better get married have children earlier then!

There's this thing called reading comprehension. Use it.

Actually, I did, as you might see if you cared to see why (and when) my post was edited...

Actually, I did, as you might see if you cared to see why (and when) my post was edited...

And yet you seemingly failed to see that it's a satire.

This is golden! Way to finally call the bigots on their hypocrisy!

that is great! I love the irony of this :)

pure and absolute brilliance. If the religious right claims that marriage is an institution for bringing children in the world, surely they can not reject the idea that marriage benefits should only go to those who conceive.

Indeed. Hilarious. :D

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh Kami-sama! That's great! I'd sign it AND vote for it just on principle!

This is golden! Way to finally call the bigots on their hypocrisy!
And then everyone is screwed when all the bigots sign the petition.

I love it. All the bullshitting about how marriage is about procreation needs to be hauled out into the open and exposed for what it is. This is a hilarious way to do it!

Every time I hear some pathetic wingnut whimpering about how marriage is for procreation, I want to grab them by the collar and drag them to meet my aunt and uncle. I want to force that pathetic piece of crap to tell my aunt and uncle that they can't be married any more because they're unable to conceive. I want them to look my loved ones in the face and say that because they can't make a baby, they can't be a family. Add insult to their injury! Come on, do it! Make sure that every infertile couple gets to endure the double loss of their marriage along with the children they were hoping to have!

While you're at it, tell adopted children everywhere that their parents don't get to be married any more, and they don't get to be a real family! Remind them that they aren't REALLY their parent's children, because their parents didn't make them by fucking. And that's what defines families, dontchaknow...heterofucking!

I think a ballot initiative like this one ought to be proposed in every single state. Hell, I think somebody ought to set forth a Constitutional Amendment stating that marriage is only real if a hetero man knocks up his hetero wife. Let's just cut all the crap out of the "debate" over gay marriage, and get down to brass tacks.

It would be funny if this law was passed.

i was fully expecting the link to go to the onion.

LOL brilliant. It seems some of the world does think like NSG does, after all!

I love my state sometimes.

There are other times when the constant idiocy over transportation spending reminds me what I don't like, but I'll forgive those, right now.

Hehe... I like the idea. Sure it's absurd, but so is denying people the right to marry based on sexual preference.

Abso-freaking-lutely.

I love this law, let's propose it as a constitutional amendment in congress!

Hehe... I like the idea. Sure it's absurd, but so is denying people the right to marry based on sexual preference.

Gracious, why did it take so long for someone to think of this? It's put up or shut up time in Washington State!

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance is making a mistake if they don't actually want the ballot to pass and they get all the signatures to have it put on the ballot.

If they made it something like 3 years and still no child, then you have to sign up to adopt a child to keep your marriage tax benefits in place or risk losing them. If you still don't have a child of your own in another span of time (say another three years) then you lose your marriage benefits. Why should benefits designed to encourage family creating/rearing continue to go to a couple of people that are simply taking advantage of the benefits with no intention of actually doing what the benefits were intended to do? It would be kind of like giving someone a tax break for selling their house, if they buy a new one then no tax gains need to be paid, if they don't buy a new one, then why should they get the tax break? They shouldn't. If you get a building permit and then not actually build, the permit is revoked or expires, same difference with the marriage license.

A ballot measure like that might actually pass, I'd vote for it.

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance is making a mistake if they don't actually want the ballot to pass and they get all the signatures to have it put on the ballot.

If they made it something like 3 years and still no child, then you have to sign up to adopt a child to keep your marriage tax benefits in place or risk losing them. If you still don't have a child of your own in another span of time (say another three years) then you lose your marriage benefits. Why should benefits designed to encourage family creating/rearing continue to go to a couple of people that are simply taking advantage of the benefits with no intention of actually doing what the benefits were intended to do? It would be kind of like giving someone a tax break for selling their house, if they buy a new one then no tax gains need to be paid, if they don't buy a new one, then why should they get the tax break? They shouldn't. If you get a building permit and then not actually build, the permit is revoked or expires, same difference with the marriage license.

A ballot measure like that might actually pass, I'd vote for it.

Hell I'd vote for it in the current form. Breed or else!

Kyahahaha, nice! Appeal to the absurd in law! Magnificent, magnificent!

Children don't just magically happen because of marriage. You don't need to be married to have a kid. Just find a person with a child, marry and the marriage now has a child.

Children don't just magically happen because of marriage. You don't need to be married to have a kid. Just find a person with a child, marry and the marriage now has a child.

That's why you word it so that only children produced by natrual conception by the married couple count. Close off the loopholes. I can't wait to see how this one plays out. I hope this gets lots of press, I'd love to see the anti-gay marriage hypocrites try to squirm their way out of this. :D

Children don't just magically happen because of marriage. You don't need to be married to have a kid. Just find a person with a child, marry and the marriage now has a child.

According to this, you'll have to produce another one within the first 3 years of marriage, though, otherwise the marriage will be annulled.

That's why you word it so that only children produced by natrual conception by the married couple count. Close off the loopholes. I can't wait to see how this one plays out. I hope this gets lots of press, I'd love to see the anti-gay marriage hypocrites squirm their way out of this. :D

That would not be a loophole. That would be a legitmate reason for marriage benefits to be granted to the couple.

If they're raising their children, or adopted children, then they should get the benefits designed to assist them. Granting a marriage license under those circumstances would be in the interest of the state. Besides, in that example, the parent is still with their own child, how silly is it of you to object to that?

According to this, you'll have to produce another one within the first 3 years of marriage, though, otherwise the marriage will be annulled.

No it wouldn't.

A ballot measure (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-gay-marriage-washington,0,2316182.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines) introduced in Washington state would require heterosexual couples to have a child within three years or have their marriages annulled.

Seems like a good idea to me. If people aren't getting married to reproduce, then it's a mockery of what God intended.

Well that's nice. Pro-Gay Marriage extremists are deciding to ruin it for everybody else simply because they can't get married. Jeez people! You don't ruin other people's marriages just so you can get your own! And you call the social conservatives "evil bastards"...

I really am beginning to lose hope in the left... I think I might end up going even further right if this crap keeps happening.

No it wouldn't.

Yes it would.

Couples who do not have children within three years could have their marriages annulled.

Well that's nice. Pro-Gay Marriage extremists are deciding to ruin it for everybody else simply because they can't get married. Jeez people! You don't ruin other people's marriages just so you can get your own! And you call the social conservatives "evil bastards"...

I really am beginning to lose hope in the left... I think I might end up going even further right if this crap keeps happening.

Same rights for all. Simple as that.

That would not be a loophole. That would be a legitmate reason for marriage benefits to be granted to the couple.

If they're raising their children, or adopted children, then they should get the benefits designed to assist them. Granting a marriage license under those circumstances would be in the interest of the state. Besides, in that example, the parent is still with their own child, how silly is it of you to object to that?

Did you even read the article his thread is about?

Yes it would.

No it wouldn't, they would have a child instantaneously as they both said "I do." Thus, their child quota would be met and they would ensure they lifetime marriage benefits.


This bill wouldn't even outlaw same-sex marriages, it would simply focus marriage licenses approval and benefits onto child rearing.

Did you even read the article his thread is about?

Of course I did. But what they intended as a joke might actually pass if it was presented to the public. Marriage is about raising children, if you don't raise children, then you don't need marriage, THAT is what would happen if it was approved. People might actually vote for it.

No it wouldn't, they would have a child instantaneously as they both said "I do." Thus, their child quota would be met and they would ensure they lifetime marriage benefits.


This bill wouldn't even outlaw same-sex marriages, it would simply focus marriage licenses approval and benefits onto child rearing.

The ballot clearly says they HAVE to have a child within the first 3 years of their marriage. And as far as I understand, adoption would not be an option. After all, conservatives claim that marriage serves the purpose of reproduction, not adoption.

Of course I did. But what they intended as a joke might actually pass if it was presented to the public. Marriage is about raising children, if you don't raise children, then you don't need marriage, THAT is what would happen if it was approved. People might actually vote for it.

And your problem with that is what, exactly?

According to this, you'll have to produce another one within the first 3 years of marriage, though, otherwise the marriage will be annulled.

The ballot clearly says they HAVE to have a child within the first 3 years of their marriage. And as far as I understand, adoption would not be an option. After all, conservatives claim that marriage serves the purpose of reproduction, not adoption.

There is already common law marriage, so, the couple could easily say that they decided to take their vows one step further and they happened to have a child in their common-law marriage.

In this case, it is still a form of marriage.

There is already common law marriage, so, the couple could easily say that they decided to take their vows one step further and they happened to have a child in their common-law marriage.

In this case, it is still a form of marriage.

I wonder if common law marriage is recognised everywhere. Or if it would still be recognised if that ballot was actually voted for.

Of course I did. But what they intended as a joke might actually pass if it was presented to the public. Marriage is about raising children, if you don't raise children, then you don't need marriage, THAT is what would happen if it was approved. People might actually vote for it.

If marriage is about raising children...
- why did my parents divorce? Or anyone's parents for that matter divorce?
- why did my mother remarry AFTER I walked out of her house?
- why do people have children WITHOUT being married?
- why do people take vows to be eternally devoted to that person?
- why do people who hate each other stay together? It damages the children more.

Why do you seem to think that marriage is only for those with children? What makes people ready to bonk each other's brains out to plant the seed more deserving of marriage than others?

Why does someone with a child deserve marriage and those who don't not?

You don't need to be married to raise a child. You don't need to be married at all.

Marriage is a right for all people. It's a right that allows them to solidify the partnership into a union that expresses that love.

Marriage is NOT about children. If it is, any relationship can be about children. You don't need marriage for that.

Marriage is NOT a privilege. It becomes discrimination if people who meet certain requirements can marry. It create a world of severe inequality because there is more to life than procreation.

I wonder if common law marriage is recognised everywhere. Or if it would still be recognised if that ballot was actually voted for.

It doesn't sound like this ballot would eliminate that.

This is absolutely brilliant. You want to suggest that marriage is an institution for the sole purpose of procreation? Well guess what, the government agrees! Now you HAVE to have a kid, or else. What's that? That's not what you meant? Then you shouldn't have run your mouth about same-sex marriage. How's it feel now?

Seems like a good idea to me. If people aren't getting married to reproduce, then it's a mockery of what God intended.

*Sarcasm meter goes haywire*

:D

i was fully expecting the link to go to the onion.

I was fully HOPING the link to go to the Onion. :(

It doesn't sound like this ballot would eliminate that.

From your previous post, I think you failed to see the point of this ballot.

Most of those who object to same-sex marriage will point out that they do so because marriage - in their understanding - is about having and raising children. As homosexuals cannot have children within a marriage in a biological way, they should not be allowed to marry.

This ballot is an attempt to force those people to put their money where their mouths are : Either make marriage exclusively about having and raising children and disolve all marriages that don't produce biological children, or else drop the pretense and let gays finally have full human rights, including the right to get married.

Well that's nice. Pro-Gay Marriage extremists are deciding to ruin it for everybody else simply because they can't get married. Jeez people! You don't ruin other people's marriages just so you can get your own! And you call the social conservatives "evil bastards"...

I really am beginning to lose hope in the left... I think I might end up going even further right if this crap keeps happening.

Someone has completely missed the point of this proposal.....

Someone has completely missed the point of this proposal.....

A couple of people have, it would seem.

This makes perfect sense, really. Everyone wins, except those bullshitters who used reproduction as an excuse to oppress homosexuals.

From your previous post, I think you failed to see the point of this ballot.

Most of those who object to same-sex marriage will point out that they do so because marriage - in their understanding - is about having and raising children. As homosexuals cannot have children within a marriage in a biological way, they should not be allowed to marry.

This ballot is an attempt to force those people to put their money where their mouths are : Either make marriage exclusively about having and raising children and disolve all marriages that don't produce biological children, or else drop the pretense and let gays finally have full human rights, including the right to get married.

I completely understand what it's for; I was questioning those who were agreeing with it. I decided to debate them. My decision to debate does NOT mean I failed at basic reading comprehension.

I realise that it was a joke, but some people seemed to support it, so I questioned it with a post that was serious, to attempt to illicit a response.

It would seem that from your post you failed to understand that I was trying to debate someone else.

I completely understand what it's for; I was questioning those who were agreeing with it. I decided to debate them. My decision to debate does NOT mean I failed at basic reading comprehension.

I realise that it was a joke, but some people seemed to support it, so I questioned it with a post that was serious, to attempt to illicit a response.

It would seem that from your post you failed to understand that I was trying to debate someone else.

We support it because it makes sense. If two people can't get married because they're the same sex, and the basis on that is that marriage is for making babies, then why should those who don't make babies be allowed to marry?

I'm all for it.

We support it because it makes sense. If two people can't get married because they're the same sex, and the basis on that is that marriage is for making babies, then why should those who don't make babies be allowed to marry?

I'm all for it.

Because it's called equality - duh!

And here's a real shocker: you can make babies WITHOUT marriage! :eek:

Because it's called equality - duh!

And here's a real shocker: you can make babies WITHOUT marriage! :eek:

And that has what exactly to do with the discussion?

Like... we can reproduce without being married...? Really? :eek:

Well, since I don't live in Washington state, and since my wife gave birth four months and three days after our wedding day*, this silly thing wouldn't apply to me even if by some fluke it did pass. But it does bring up a larger question: What business does the government have recognizing or not recognizing marriage in the first place? My marriage is between myself and my wife. The government has no business involving itself, and yet we had to apply for a license, and pay for it, in order to get "legally" married.

Eliminate legal recognition for marriage, and all of the problems go away. Churches can choose to perform marriages, or not, for whomever they please, and everybody else can associate with whomever they wish. Yes, there are still property and child support issues to deal with, but these can be dealt with through contract law without the government adding any additional complications.

Remember, marriage isn't a "right" as long as the government can deny it. It's only a right if you can do it, or not, as you yourself choose. As it stands, marriage is a privilege granted by the government to some and not others. How about that, Bible-thumpers? By preventing gays from marrying, you have effectively eliminated your own right to marriage, because if the government can take it away from them, they can take it away from you too!

*Figure out for yourself what that means. :p

I wonder what limitations annulment places on remarriage. Seems to me that under this statute, even if you were annulled, you could just...remarry. Which means, basically, that all it comes down to is paying an extra...whatever it costs for a marriage license every 3 years or so.

And that has what exactly to do with the discussion?

Well, you have marriage so you can have kids... ;) or at least that's the justification for it according to the ballot measurement.

Well, you have marriage so you can have kids... ;) or at least that's the justification for it according to the ballot measurement.

I reeeeally think you're confused.

The bill is meant to make it so the christian idiots who don't want gay people to get married realize how stupid they're being.

Your sig says left-wing socialist secular atheist. This bill is -right- up your alley, as well as mine.

This makes perfect sense, really. Everyone wins, except those bullshitters who used reproduction as an excuse to oppress homosexuals.

I must say that this proposal really is quite amusing. Getting people to stop saying that marriage is about having children would really be a major step and seeing those proponents suffer from apoplexy over this would certainly be a fun thing to watch.

Really now, if you are going to get simplistic about the reason for marriage then I think people get married so they can have sex without committing a sin. Sounds like a more sound theory to me anyway.

Well, since I don't live in Washington state, and since my wife gave birth four months and three days after our wedding day*, this silly thing wouldn't apply to me even if by some fluke it did pass. But it does bring up a larger question: What business does the government have recognizing or not recognizing marriage in the first place? My marriage is between myself and my wife. The government has no business involving itself, and yet we had to apply for a license, and pay for it, in order to get "legally" married.

Eliminate legal recognition for marriage, and all of the problems go away. Churches can choose to perform marriages, or not, for whomever they please, and everybody else can associate with whomever they wish. Yes, there are still property and child support issues to deal with, but these can be dealt with through contract law without the government adding any additional complications.

Remember, marriage isn't a "right" as long as the government can deny it. It's only a right if you can do it, or not, as you yourself choose. As it stands, marriage is a privilege granted by the government to some and not others. How about that, Bible-thumpers? By preventing gays from marrying, you have effectively eliminated your own right to marriage, because if the government can take it away from them, they can take it away from you too!

*Figure out for yourself what that means. :p

Loving v Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967):

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

The government has every right to decide which marriages are valid and which are not, because the government provides certain benefits to married people. For instance, if you believe that your marriage is between you and your wife and doesn't include the government, will you be declining the privilege of filing your taxes jointly?

The government has every right to decide which marriages are valid and which are not, because the government provides certain benefits to married people. For instance, if you believe that your marriage is between you and your wife and doesn't include the government, will you be declining the privilege of filing your taxes jointly?

Very well, then the government is by default forced to recognize gay marriage.

Why is government involved in marriage anyway?

Why is government involved in marriage anyway?

Because of the tangible monetary benefits that can be derived from marriage.

Though it might also have something to do with the fact that the government has often been used to support "Christian" ideals in regards to social setup. This is pure speculation, so please don't flame me for saying it.

Very well, then the government is by default forced to recognize gay marriage.

Jolly good, old chap.

But explaining this even to moderate centrists allied with the left-wing... that's quite difficult, expecially here in Italy, with the Pope continuously bragging about "true marriage", "true family" etc. I know, it was a great mistake not to take Vatican City also back in 1870.

Very well, then the government is by default forced to recognize gay marriage.

You would think so, wouldn't you? It'll come, I have no doubt.

Seems like a good idea to me. If people aren't getting married to reproduce, then it's a mockery of what God intended.

Pray tell you are being sarcastic, sir. :eek:

Why is government involved in marriage anyway?

I ponder the same thing, myself.

You would think so, wouldn't you? It'll come, I have no doubt.

It's inevitable. The younger the group, the more support for same sex marriage, to the point where 18-25 year olds support it something like 60-40 now. The assholes are losing this one, slowly but surely, which is why they're constantly screeching about the need for a constitutional amendment.

Ha! That's great. :p

It's inevitable. The younger the group, the more support for same sex marriage, to the point where 18-25 year olds support it something like 60-40 now. The assholes are losing this one, slowly but surely, which is why they're constantly screeching about the need for a constitutional amendment.


That's the great thing about the USA. As time goes on each generation is more tolerant than the last. Unfortunately it takes a long time for the old bigots to die.

That's the great thing about the USA. As time goes on each generation is more tolerant than the last. Unfortunately it takes a long time for the old bigots to die.

That's the problem with modern health care. The old bigots just linger and linger and linger. How old was Senator Strom before he went home to Jeebus?

That's the great thing about the USA. As time goes on each generation is more tolerant than the last. Unfortunately it takes a long time for the old bigots to die.
Hmmm. Suddenly I'm seeing a reason to cut Medicare funding. :p

That's the problem with modern health care. The old bigots just linger and linger and linger. How old was Senator Strom before he went home to Jeebus?

Only the Good Die Young, eh?

The Old Bigot ... good name for a pub. When people question it, you say, "Oh, yes, well, it's pronounced 'bee-go,' it's an old French name, we often get asked that."

I love my state sometimes.

There are other times when the constant idiocy over transportation spending reminds me what I don't like, but I'll forgive those, right now.

QFT and seconded!

Washington, my home!

Well that's nice. Pro-Gay Marriage extremists are deciding to ruin it for everybody else simply because they can't get married. Jeez people! You don't ruin other people's marriages just so you can get your own! And you call the social conservatives "evil bastards"...

I really am beginning to lose hope in the left... I think I might end up going even further right if this crap keeps happening.

SWINNNNG and a miss.

QFT and seconded!

Washington, my home!

Washington, My Home (http://www1.leg.wa.gov/documents/common/wamyhome_sheetmusic.pdf) :D

Brilliant!

This is even better than the amendment the dems in the GA legislature tried to add making adultery illegal to show how absurd the gay marriage amendment was.


Why is government involved in marriage anyway?

Monetary entanglements, child custody, and next-of-kin. Without some sort of government recognition, it would be virtually impossible in a long-term relationship to determine ownership, who owes debts, etc. No matter how hard a married couple tries to keep things separate, there will be entanglements, and the government needs a way to (a) keep people from transferring all their money to a spouse and then claiming bankruptcy to get out of debt and (b) legally split things up if the relationship ends. Child custody will always be an issue, but some of the ambiguities can be done away with in a marriage situation. And, as a general rule, a person wants their spouse to be their next-of-kin, as that is the person they most trust and would want making decisions for them. Not to mention the fact that they share most of their assets anyways.

Washington, My Home (http://www1.leg.wa.gov/documents/common/wamyhome_sheetmusic.pdf) :D

Right on! (I still think the state song should be "Louie Louie".)

*snip Georgian reference*

Monetary entanglements, child custody, and next-of-kin. Without some sort of government recognition, it would be virtually impossible in a long-term relationship to determine ownership, who owes debts, etc. No matter how hard a married couple tries to keep things separate, there will be entanglements, and the government needs a way to (a) keep people from transferring all their money to a spouse and then claiming bankruptcy to get out of debt and (b) legally split things up if the relationship ends. Child custody will always be an issue, but some of the ambiguities can be done away with in a marriage situation. And, as a general rule, a person wants their spouse to be their next-of-kin, as that is the person they most trust and would want making decisions for them. Not to mention the fact that they share most of their assets anyways.

Can't all of this be taken care of through contrct law, like every other kind of partnership?

We have "pre-nuptial agreements" which can affect the outcome of a marriage during its end, why not just have a "nuptial agreement" which covers the whole process?

Well, since I don't live in Washington state, and since my wife gave birth four months and three days after our wedding day*, this silly thing wouldn't apply to me even if by some fluke it did pass. But it does bring up a larger question: What business does the government have recognizing or not recognizing marriage in the first place? My marriage is between myself and my wife. The government has no business involving itself, and yet we had to apply for a license, and pay for it, in order to get "legally" married.

If you really think your marriage is between you and your wife and all that, why did you apply for a license, and pay for it, to get it legally recognized? There is no law that says you have to do so. If you have a problem with it, why did you do it?

Can't all of this be taken care of through contrct law, like every other kind of partnership?

There are privileges and rights associated with marriage that cannot be obtained through any other legal construct, so no, not in the sense that you mean. Marriage law is, however, essentially contract law. It is a pre-defined contract between two people that, once signed, is recognized by the government. It allows people to get quite a bit covered - much of it that they can't get covered any other way - in one step (and without paying $100's or $1000's in lawyer's fees). Those who wish to alter the agreement higher lawyers for that process.

We have "pre-nuptial agreements" which can affect the outcome of a marriage during its end, why not just have a "nuptial agreement" which covers the whole process?

You mean a marriage license?

I wonder if common law marriage is recognised everywhere. Or if it would still be recognised if that ballot was actually voted for.

Actually, many places have gotten rid of common law marriage. In the US, there are still a few states, IIRC, with common law marriage rules. Most, however, have done away with them.

Why should benefits designed to encourage family creating/rearing continue to go to a couple of people that are simply taking advantage of the benefits with no intention of actually doing what the benefits were intended to do?

If the rights and responsibilities associated with marriage had anything to do with rearing children, you'd have a point. However, since only a tiny fraction of marriage law has anything at all to do with child-rearing - and that only in the matter of who has custody - you have no point. Government recognition of marriage has much more to do with assets and the legal relationship between two people who have chosen to live their lives as one than it does with children.

i was fully expecting the link to go to the onion.

No kidding. That's the first thing I looked for, too. There're some wacked out people in Washington state, huh?

No kidding. That's the first thing I looked for, too. There're some wacked out people in Washington state, huh?

Wacked out like foxes....

No kidding. That's the first thing I looked for, too. There're some wacked out people in Washington state, huh?

Reread it. You're missing the point. Which, incidentally, would be the same point the Onion would have been making if it did something like this.

There are privileges and rights associated with marriage that cannot be obtained through any other legal construct, so no, not in the sense that you mean. Marriage law is, however, essentially contract law. It is a pre-defined contract between two people that, once signed, is recognized by the government. It allows people to get quite a bit covered - much of it that they can't get covered any other way - in one step (and without paying $100's or $1000's in lawyer's fees). Those who wish to alter the agreement higher lawyers for that process.



You mean a marriage license?

Good points. Having not been married, I'd forgotten all the details that seem to be taken care of with the act of marriage with a state-sanctioned license. Which is odd, considering I used to work for the county auditor in my home county, and one of my duties was swearing in couples before they signed and purchased their licenses. ($52 at that time in Washington. No idea what it costs now.)

I don't neccesarly think marrige is about procreation, and I DO know this is a joke but...if gays promised never to whine again about how men, should marry men, I'd endorse this law.

Well, since I don't live in Washington state, and since my wife gave birth four months and three days after our wedding day*, this silly thing wouldn't apply to me even if by some fluke it did pass. But it does bring up a larger question: What business does the government have recognizing or not recognizing marriage in the first place? My marriage is between myself and my wife. The government has no business involving itself, and yet we had to apply for a license, and pay for it, in order to get "legally" married.

Eliminate legal recognition for marriage, and all of the problems go away. Churches can choose to perform marriages, or not, for whomever they please, and everybody else can associate with whomever they wish. Yes, there are still property and child support issues to deal with, but these can be dealt with through contract law without the government adding any additional complications.

Remember, marriage isn't a "right" as long as the government can deny it. It's only a right if you can do it, or not, as you yourself choose. As it stands, marriage is a privilege granted by the government to some and not others. How about that, Bible-thumpers? By preventing gays from marrying, you have effectively eliminated your own right to marriage, because if the government can take it away from them, they can take it away from you too!

*Figure out for yourself what that means. :p

Agreed.

I don't neccesarly think marrige is about procreation, and I DO know this is a joke but...if gays promised never to whine again about how men, should marry men, I'd endorse this law.
Odd, I've never heard gays ever say that men should marry men, only that they should be able to.

Odd, I've never heard gays ever say that men should marry men, only that they should be able to.

Right, I had to type quick.

With the number of idiots in this country, I wouldn't be surprised if it did pass. This would take California out of first place for legislated insanity and would probably cause a severe drop in population in Washington as every sane person leaves.

A ballot measure (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-gay-marriage-washington,0,2316182.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines) introduced in Washington state would require heterosexual couples to have a child within three years or have their marriages annulled.

Seems like a good idea to me. If people aren't getting married to reproduce, then it's a mockery of what God intended.

This is where I live people, trust me, thier has been weirder stuff.

I don't neccesarly think marrige is about procreation, and I DO know this is a joke but...if gays promised never to whine again about how men, should marry men, I'd endorse this law.

So you'd be willing to destroy thousands of stable hetero marriages in exchange for having homosexuals stop complaining about their inability to marry? Seriously?

A ballot measure (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-gay-marriage-washington,0,2316182.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines) introduced in Washington state would require heterosexual couples to have a child within three years or have their marriages annulled.

Seems like a good idea to me. If people aren't getting married to reproduce, then it's a mockery of what God intended.


Are you a troll?

Same rights for all. Simple as that.
But if everybody is equal under the law, and nobody is getting automatically declared sub-human on the basis of their race or sex or orientation, then how will we know who to insult and degrade in public?! We need to know who the designated underclass are!! How can we possibly measure our own freedom and status, other than by comparing ourselves to the people we oppress?!

But if everybody is equal under the law, and nobody is getting automatically declared sub-human on the basis of their race or sex or orientation, then how will we know who to insult and degrade in public?! We need to know who the designated underclass are!! How can we possibly measure our own freedom and status, other than by comparing ourselves to the people we oppress?!

Shit man that's easy! Anybody who wears glasses!

Shit man that's easy! Anybody who wears glasses!
Whew, thank heavens.

For a minute there, I was worried that we might have to contemplate a world of actual equality and mutual respect for human dignity. That shit will put you off your feed, I tell you what.

Whew, thank heavens.

For a minute there, I was worried that we might have to contemplate a world of actual equality and mutual respect for human dignity. That shit will put you off your feed, I tell you what.


Mutal what? Waaaahhhhahha equalitwho? Bwaahhhhhahh


You, sheesh, you are one very funny woman!

Right, I had to type quick.

Or else the gay militia was gonna get you? :p

Are you a troll?

Sarcasm is more than a 7-letter word starting with S.

With the number of idiots in this country, I wouldn't be surprised if it did pass. This would take California out of first place for legislated insanity and would probably cause a severe drop in population in Washington as every sane person leaves.

To everyone that thinks this is more than a point-making proposition:

The people that proposed this ballot do not expect it to pass, they just want to make a point through appeal to the absurd. They said so themselves. RTFA.

Or else the gay militia was gonna get you? :p
See, and my assumption was that he had to type quickly because he needed a free hand or two to address his growing "tension" at the thought of gay men.

But that's just because I've noticed that homophobes tend to spend a whole lot more time thinking about gay sex than non-homophobes, and I tend to suspect one very obvious reason for that...;)

See, and my assumption was that he had to type quickly because he needed a free hand or two to address his growing "tension" at the thought of gay men.

But that's just because I've noticed that homophobes tend to spend a whole lot more time thinking about gay sex than non-homophobes, and I tend to suspect one very obvious reason for that...;)

What, he can't type with one hand? It's easy! I do it all the time...
































...when I'm eating!

Perverts. :p

Shit man that's easy! Anybody who wears glasses!

It's about time I got Lasik, then.

Odd, I've never heard gays ever say that men should marry men, only that they should be able to.

You obviously haven't been reading your agenda. It's right there on page 5 of the fall revision.

You obviously haven't been reading your agenda. It's right there on page 5 of the fall revision.
Haven't gotten my copy yet. They keep sending it via surface mail on a Greenpeace ship and said ship always goes off to chase the Japanese whaling fleet so it takes even longer.













I'ms just being silly this mornin'

Violation of human rights, I'd say.

Violation of human rights, I'd say.

Of course, the same could be said of denying homosexual couples the right to marry.

This makes perfect sense, really. Everyone wins, except those bullshitters who used reproduction as an excuse to oppress homosexuals.

Really? How about people who support homosexuals' rights to marriage, who don't want kids themselves but want to be married?

This proprosal you're crowing about is a slap in the face to people who are not the religious wackos -- because by golly, the wackos have their kids.

Really? How about people who support homosexuals' rights to marriage, who don't want kids themselves but want to be married?

This proprosal you're crowing about is a slap in the face to people who are not the religious wackos -- because by golly, the wackos have their kids.

You're missing the point, which is surprising because you don't usually. The point is that the argument that procreation is a necessary element to marriage is a ridiculous one, if taken to its logical conclusion. The legislation is meant to point that fact out, which it does, very effectively.

You're missing the point, which is surprising because you don't usually. The point is that the argument that procreation is a necessary element to marriage is a ridiculous one, if taken to its logical conclusion. The legislation is meant to point that fact out, which it does, very effectively.

No, I'm pointing out that all the lolling and "Serves them right!" does in fact affect a group who surprise surprise is being marginalized in PRECISELY the same way that same-sex couples are (that is, people who wish to be married and can't/don't want to have kids), and that this slap in the face won't even make the religious nuts blink because it doesn't apply to the vast majority of the "be fruitful and multiply" crowd.

In everyone's zeal to bash the religious right, they're missing the mark widely. All that fun y'all are poking is at the wrong crowd.

Haven't gotten my copy yet. They keep sending it via surface mail on a Greenpeace ship and said ship always goes off to chase the Japanese whaling fleet so it takes even longer.













I'ms just being silly this mornin'

Those God damn whales would have probably eatin all of our shrimp if it wasn't for the Japanese and Russians putting those things in check! :mad:

Too bad fundies are too dense to see that.

This isn't going to do much more than give Sean Hannity something to b@#$% about.

Divorce.

Not Jim Carrey, though!

No, I'm pointing out that all the lolling and "Serves them right!" does in fact affect a group who surprise surprise is being marginalized in PRECISELY the same way that same-sex couples are (that is, people who wish to be married and can't/don't want to have kids), and that this slap in the face won't even make the religious nuts blink because it doesn't apply to the vast majority of the "be fruitful and multiply" crowd.

In everyone's zeal to bash the religious right, they're missing the mark widely. All that fun y'all are poking is at the wrong crowd.

What you're missing is that this isn't just pointed at the religious right. It's pointed at everyone who goes along with the idea that gays shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else, and while that may be spearheaded by the religious right, GASP! it's not just them. There are plenty of self-described moderates who think gays should be treated as second class citizens. This is a way of waking them up to the stupidity of their arguments.

And by the way, the primary group this effort has been pointed at is the Washington state Supreme Court. They're the ones who used the stupid "marriage is about kids" formulation in their decision last year.

No, I'm pointing out that all the lolling and "Serves them right!" does in fact affect a group who surprise surprise is being marginalized in PRECISELY the same way that same-sex couples are (that is, people who wish to be married and can't/don't want to have kids), and that this slap in the face won't even make the religious nuts blink because it doesn't apply to the vast majority of the "be fruitful and multiply" crowd.

In everyone's zeal to bash the religious right, they're missing the mark widely. All that fun y'all are poking is at the wrong crowd.

Kat, they're using it as an appeal to the absurd. They themselves know it's absurd, and I'm sure they'd not vote FOR it once it's on the floor. They used the proposition to make a point by showing how it would be if they took the Right's argument to the last consequences. They do not REALLY intend to do that.

Really? How about people who support homosexuals' rights to marriage, who don't want kids themselves but want to be married?

This proprosal you're crowing about is a slap in the face to people who are not the religious wackos -- because by golly, the wackos have their kids.

Kinda like when there was a big push for ebonics to be recognized as a language. Until someone finally had the common sense to point out that they were basically saying that blacks were too stupid to speak proper English. It's just another idiot making a statement.

Kat, they're using it as an appeal to the absurd. They themselves know it's absurd, and I'm sure they'd not vote FOR it once it's on the floor. They used the proposition to make a point by showing how it would be if they took the Right's argument to the last consequences. They do not REALLY intend to do that.
Yeah, honestly Kat, I really don't think this measure is intended to pass at all. It won't hurt any of the people you are worried about. It is a way of making the point that "married is for procreation" is bullshit, which should warm that heart of any hetero couple who are married but don't choose to have children!

As somebody who will probably marry one day, but never intends to have children, I see this measure as striking a blow FOR people like me. When bigots say that marriage is about procreation, they aren't just attacking gay marriage, they're attacking my marriage too.

They're insulting my (hetero) relationship along with all the gay relationships out there. They're insulting people like my relatives who cannot have their own children. They're insulting people like my grandmother, who had this crazy notion that she should have the right to a marriage even after she hit menopause.

This initiative is meant to draw a big, bold black line under all that, and force people to realize what they are really doing when they say marriage is about procreation. Your reaction is exactly what they're going for, I think, because the whole point is for people to be outraged on behalf of all the people who would be unjustly denied equality under the law!