BF2S Forums New law REQUIRES married couples to have a child within 3 years.

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

KENNEWICK, Wash.- A new initiative is turning heads around the state as the gay-marriage debate heats up again.

Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed has accepted Iinitiative 957, a response by gay rights activists to a State Supreme Court ruling last summer.

The Washington Supreme Court ruled that the state could prevent gay and lesbian couples from marrying because the state has a legitimate interest in preserving marriage for procreation.

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance then filed the initiative.

I-957 has five clauses that would have to be met for a legal marriage.

It would allow only couples capable of having kids to marry, and that they file "proof of procreation" within three years of the marriage. If not, the marriage would be annulled.

Many people think the law is over the top.

Leaders at a Kennewick church with gay and lesbian members feel the same.

"There are many marriages that are not about having children. There are many couples who marry later in life, they marry for companionship, they marry because they want to create a family," said the Reverend Janet Pierce.

"They don't necessarily marry to have children," Pierce said.

I-957 would also force couples who married out of state to show the same proof of procreation or their marriage wouldn't be recognized, and it would become a criminal act for anyone in an unrecognized marriage to get marriage benefits.

To make it on the November ballot they need 224,800 signatures by July 6.

Fine by me. It guarantees that I continue to get sex after marriage.

Wow.

Welcome to the Socialist Republic of Washington State.

chittydog wrote:

Wow is right. I almost fell for it until I saw it was Fancy posting.

Not everyhing he does is comedy.


This isn't funny.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

chittydog wrote:

Wow is right. I almost fell for it until I saw it was Fancy posting.

Not this time.

http://www.wa-doma.org/

I don't know what stuns me more, this law actually being put fourth or fancy not posting complete bs for once.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

chittydog wrote:

Wow is right. I almost fell for it until I saw it was Fancy posting.

Not this time.

http://www.wa-doma.org/

This makes me sick to my stomach...

Last edited by chittydog (2007-02-06 08:32:36)

i dont know what to say. what a stupid idea. whoever though of that should be imprisoned into a mental institution for the rest of their lives

crimson_grunt wrote:

I have a genuine question about this phrase "It would allow only couples capable of having kids to marry”.   Does this mean that a hetro couple who are infertile could not be legally married?

i guess that would be implied. stopping marriages that have been accepable for 1000's of years is a real smart idea

Last edited by max (2007-02-06 08:35:02)

http://www.wa-doma.org/YouCanHelp.aspx

Read please:
http://www.wa-doma.org/news/PR20060126.aspx
DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE INITIATIVE ACCEPTED BY SECRETARY OF STATE
January 26, 2007

Seattle, WA – The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance (WA-DOMA) announced on Thursday that their proposed initiative to make procreation a requirement for legal marriage has been accepted by the Secretary of State and assigned the serial number 957. The initiative has been in the planning stages since the Washington Supreme Court ruled last July that the state’s Defense of Marriage Act was constitutional.

“For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation,” said WA-DOMA organizer Gregory Gadow in a printed statement. “The Washington Supreme Court echoed that claim in their lead ruling on Andersen v. King County. The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine. If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who can not or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage. And this is what the Defense of Marriage Initiative will do.”

Mr. Gadow also stated, “Our agenda is to shine a very bright light on the injustice and prejudice that underlie the Andersen decision by giving that decision the full force of law.

If passed by Washington voters, I-957 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.

This initiative is the first of three that WA-DOMA has planned for upcoming years. The other two would prohibit divorce or separation when a married couple has children together, and make having a child together the equivalent of marriage.

The text of I-957 and further information about the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance can be found at the group’s website: www.WA-DOMA.org.

chittydog wrote:

This all makes sense now. If you read the statement after the initiative (it's not a law, just a proposed law), this wasn't proposed with the intention of becoming law, but as a protest to the government interfering in our private lives by saying who can and cannot get married.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-02-06 08:38:49)

Funny thing is that these days, probably more kids are born out of wedlock, or marriages due to pregnancy.

Last edited by Ilocano (2007-02-06 09:09:16)

Ilocano wrote:

Funny thing is that these days, probably more kids are born out of wedlock, or marriages due to pregnancy.

I have a hard time believing that when Mormon families are having 10+ kids.

Stingray24 wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

Funny thing is that these days, probably more kids are born out of wedlock, or marriages due to pregnancy.

I have a hard time believing that when Mormon families are having 10+ kids.

Yes, we refer to people like that as having litters. 

Jussimies wrote:

I can understant this, but what happens, if the couple is men and women, and one or booth are somehow disabled so that they can't have a child?

That's the whole point.  They are trying to make a statement that the relationship between two adults is more than just being able to have children.

TigerXtrm wrote:

Then you're pretty much fucked over. This is the biggest bullshit I have heard yet. Earth is being overpopulated and these fuckwits are now forcing these people to have kids? Jezus Christ says BULLSHIT! People who think this shit up should be shot on the spot.

Tiger

Hey, why don't you  just make an itty bitty tiny amount of effort... and read what the proposed law really is and what it is a reaction to.

Then you can request them to be "shot on the spot."