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.
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.
2007-02-06 04:32:24 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
That's terrific! It's another bill that makes people think. It will never pass, and that's not it's purpose, but it brings up a good point. People argue against the "naturalness" of homosexuality because they can't have kids. And only marriages that are "natural" should be allowed. Therefore if marriages don't produce kids, they are unnatural, and should be annulled. Makes sense to me. At least as much as any other argument on the topic.
2007-02-06 05:17:07 · answer #1 · answered by joecool123_us 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
convinced, me. My husband is an excellent guy. like you, my in guidelines stay far away, 11,000 miles away to be excellent. the first time they met me, they proper away hated me. My husband did not say a lot to them about it and they went residing house and all grow to be properly. They not in any respect have regarded our youthful ones and then very last 3 hundred and sixty 5 days all the unexpected they wanting to go back visit. They demanded he see them on my own for the first 3 days of their stay. via then, I had HAD it. He took me to their inn to "meet" with them and all hell broke loose. This time he stood up for me and extremely flew into them. They not talk now. that is a shame, yet has made my existence much better effective.
2016-12-03 19:28:22 · answer #2 · answered by rothberg 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yeah I dont' see that one passing for the same reason that abortion is legal. If they can't force a woman to have a baby she doesn't want, how can they get around this one, lol.
Thats seriously messed up, lol.
2007-02-06 04:44:51 · answer #3 · answered by Chrissy 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That is by far the stupedest thing I have ever heard of
2007-02-06 04:37:10 · answer #4 · answered by David S 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Just when I thought I had heard everything...
2007-02-06 04:42:57 · answer #5 · answered by Pretending To Work 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
What a **** Jackass....... what about people the already have kids???
Yep thought that one out....
2007-02-06 04:36:45 · answer #6 · answered by mdlbldrmatt135 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
get a life mate.
2007-02-06 04:37:06 · answer #7 · answered by oobedoo 1 · 1⤊ 2⤋