Initiative 957
If passed by Washington voters, the Defense of Marriage Initiative 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.
http://www.wa-doma.org/
2007-03-13 10:35:48 · 18 answers · asked by God 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Nice to see someone following their bigoted ideas to their logical course.
2007-03-13 10:39:33 · answer #1 · answered by WWTSD? 5 · 6⤊ 0⤋
I heard about this. Its completely ridiculous. They are following the argument that "marriage is for the purpose of procreation only" which is just nonsense. So what happens if you are infertile, you cant get married? If you want to marry someone you should be able to for your own purposes. And what if older people (like the woman has already gone through menopause) get married? Dont tell me they cant either?
Sheesh
2007-03-13 18:05:11 · answer #2 · answered by Together 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They're trying to prove a point: that marriage is NOT only for the purpose of making babies - and that therefore, same-sex marriage should be legal.
I agree. I'm straight, but not narrow. And I refuse to have children.
2007-03-13 17:40:04 · answer #3 · answered by catrionn 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You are aware, I assume, that DOMA is a group for same-sex marriage. It's their attempt to carry the definition of marriage to an absurd degree to make a point.
2007-03-13 17:47:08 · answer #4 · answered by cmw 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It is a good turn on the "marriage is only for man-woman unions" nuts though! I'm okay, I have proof, 3x over.
2007-03-13 17:39:32 · answer #5 · answered by Huggles-the-wise 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What a wonderful idea! I absolutely love it. In fact, I think it would be a good idea to legislate that they must have a kid at least every two years after that.
2007-03-13 17:44:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hmm, you don't suppose they would use this to prevent gay marriages do you?
No, that would be far too weaselly for such a reputable organisation. There must be a more innocent explanation for this accidental oversight.
2007-03-13 17:40:49 · answer #7 · answered by Dharma Nature 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
That sure is a creative way to fight those stupid ideas about whom may marry. I'd sign this any time.
2007-03-13 17:57:34 · answer #8 · answered by Dr. Zaius 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Wow, the left will stop at nothing to change/pervert marriage. And talk about intolerance towards impotent couples.
2007-03-13 17:39:29 · answer #9 · answered by David G 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
So infertile men and women can no longer marry?
Gee, there's a step in the right direction. : P
Thank goodness it is satirical.
.
2007-03-13 17:46:09 · answer #10 · answered by Chickyn in a Handbasket 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋