Homosexuals want Washington Initiative

[Matthitjah]

Quote NWCN News;

http://www.nwcn.com/statenews/washington/s...W.546c6a4d.html

Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids

10:26 AM PST on Tuesday, February 6, 2007

KING5.com Staff and Associated Press

OLYMPIA, Wash. - 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.

Related Content

Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance

Under the initiative, 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.

All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized" and people in those marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.

[forrestkc]

I think they are simply doing this in response to the irrational assertions by some social conservatives that marriage as far as the state is concerned is primarily for procreation and that same sex couples should not be recognized by the state because they are incapable of procreation.

Otherwise, they are obviously doing this to make a point. No one would think this would be a serious initiative with any chance of passing.

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

As I said,

"Naw, there's no Culture War going on".

I'm a little nonplussed though. I thought Social Liberals were for Liberty and the desire of the Majority in these situations. However it would appear the majority of Americans do not want this at all. So why the sour grapes?

Forrest,

Do you support Homosexual Marriages?

Peace,

Dave

[Oh Hamburgers!]

I think they are simply doing this in response to the irrational assertions by some social conservatives that marriage as far as the state is concerned is primarily for procreation and that same sex couples should not be recognized by the state because they are incapable of procreation.

Otherwise, they are obviously doing this to make a point. No one would think this would be a serious initiative with any chance of passing.

Yeah, there is no way this would EVER go through, it also sounds to me like it is an attempt to "make a point" as Forrest put it.

[Gerioke]

Sounds like a " I know you are but what am I" type of routine. Why don't these people do something meaningful with their lives?

[forrestkc]

Grace to you,

As I said,

"Naw, there's no Culture War going on".

I'm a little nonplussed though. I thought Social Liberals were for Liberty and the desire of the Majority in these situations. However it would appear the majority of Americans do not want this at all. So why the sour grapes?

Forrest,

Do you support Homosexual Marriages?

Peace,

Dave

Actually, the will of the majority is irrelevant in the case of civil liberties. In fact, by design the constitution specifically prevents a tyranny of the majority over a minority. For example, your rights extend so far as not impede the rights of another individual. The majority no matter how strong the vote, cannot use the government as a vehicle to restrict the rights of a minority.

As to your second question. There are really two issues here, what the state chooses to recognize and what the church chooses to recognize. The state has no authority over what marriages the church recognizes, and the church cannot use the state as a vehicle to endorse, promote, or compel others to adhere to the religious beliefs of the church. This is exactly why you can pretty much take it to the bank that at some point at the government will legally recognize either same sex marriage or some sort of a legal equivalent like Civil Unions.

Personally, while I would see something wrong with the church recognizing same sex marriages, I see nothing at all wrong with the state recognizing some kind of a civil union between same sex couples. There are lots of same sex couples that are in long term, loving, and monogamous relationships. The problem is without some form of a Civil Union, they cannot make medical decisions for their partners in an emergency. Upon death, in many cases, even very carefully drawn wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude the surviving partner from a funeral or deny the partner the right to visit a partner's hospital bed or grave. As survivors, estranged families can, in nearly all states, even seize a real estate property that a gay couple may have been buying together for many years. If a partner is arrested, their partner can be compelled to testify against them or provide evidence against them, which legally married couples are not forced to do.

[Giaour]

Sounds like a " I know you are but what am I" type of routine. Why don't these people do something meaningful with their lives?

They did do something meaningful.They got the superbowl snickers candy bar commercial removed from the airways.

Said it portrayed gays in a bad way.

UGH!!!!!

[Oh Hamburgers!]

I don't take anything serious these wicked people say.

Sounds to me like you are associating the people with the sins they are commiting...

Love the sinner, hate the sin?

[Oh Hamburgers!]

I don't take anything serious these wicked people say.

Sounds to me like you are associating the people with the sins they are commiting...

Love the sinner, hate the sin?

That doesn't change the fact that they are still wicked.

Using that logic, then we are all wicked by default, because we have all sinned.

[Leonard]

These demented perverts want no judgment at all exercised towards their chosen filth, but want to be able to make life even harder for poor childless couples!

May the Lord make his judgment plain.