<p>Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids (Look what mini’s neighbors are doing)</p>
<p>KING5.com Staff and Associated Press</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>All other marriages would be defined as “unrecognized” and people in those marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.</p>
<p>Strangely enough I would support this also. Hetero couples not having kids is declining our numbers in the Census, so this would make people propagate the race.</p>
<p>So adoption doesn’t count? (they have to prove they can have kids)…what a wonderful to screw kids who need to be adopted. </p>
<p>The most ironic part is that I’m going to go out on a limb here and presume these people are politically “conservative.” Therefore, most laws (laws <em>they</em> don’t support) are indicative of the nanny state and too much government regulation. Yet, this represents the ultimate in a “nanny state” - the government attempting to control your marriage/reproduction. </p>
<p>Run into financial trouble? Have to have kids or have your marriage rights annulled. But don’t expect these people to help you out since they probably whine about their taxes paying for welfare. Serious illness like cancer? Out of luck. </p>
<p>Maybe they should go a step further and require everyone who has a child out of wedlock to give it up, since clearly they know what’s best for everyone’s reproductive rights.</p>
<p>Princedog, it’s clearly just to get a point across to the conservatives who want to deny same-sex couples marriage on the grounds that marriage is for having children.</p>
<p>Wow, talk about a violation of civil rights… Do we really want the state in our uterus? Some of these responses scare me. I mean, it’s one thing to make an offhand comment, another to actually type out bat-**** insane responses…</p>
<p>I realize exactly what it is. It’s an attempt for a group to pass their religious beliefs off on everybody else. They can do it if they want (freedom of speech) but I disagree with the principles it’s based on. They believe marriages are designed for reproduction, which is fine, if they want to live that way. But what point do they really think they’re making? There’s no logic here. I’m just pointing out the flaws in the logic IMO.</p>
<p>A group of gay-marriage supporters could begin collecting signatures today for a November ballot initiative that would limit marriage in Washington to couples willing and able to have children.</p>
<p>The measure would also dissolve the union of those who remain childless three years after marrying.</p>
<p>Are they serious?</p>
<p>Gregory Gadow, of the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, said the group hopes to make a point by parodying a state Supreme Court ruling last year that denied gays the right to marry because, among other reasons, such unions don’t further the purpose of procreation.</p>
<p>. . .</p>
<p>Gadow said his alliance — whose name itself is part of the parody, forming the acronym DOMA — is a loosely organized group of 15 or so friends. While they will work to get Initiative 957 on the ballot and passed in November, Gadow said he doesn’t really want to see it enacted — and would expect the Supreme Court ultimately to strike it down as unconstitutional.</p>
<p>And that’s the point, he said. By striking down I-957, he believes the court would be forced to confront its decision in the gay-marriage case.</p>
<p>“We want people to think about the purpose of marriage,” he said. “If it exists for the purpose of procreation, they must understand then that these are the consequences.”</p>
<p>Wonder how many would exodus from Wash under those circumstances - then the census would certainly drop along with state $$'s - gee then maybe withdraw from the union?? </p>
<p>I’d probably never get married if this was a law. I like kids and would gladly adopt from Europe, but the actual process of having one? Even though I’m a guy I’d say FORGET IT.</p>
<p>Besides, isn’t this becoming communistic? Sort of like China’s one child policy but the other way around?</p>
<p>Oh okay. I guess I read it wrong. I find that even more confusing. I feel like everyone is just going to either think it’s ridiculous or agree with them, and the people who agree are going to be the ones they’re fighting. Or it just makes them look even crazier in the eyes of people who might already find them crazy. Don’t really know though.</p>