Author Topic: wasted legislation (Read 3276 times)

red · « **on:** Feb 15, 2007, 12:48:59 PM »

what is this country coming to? if you dont have a child within 3 years of being married, your marriage is annuled.

*FFC* · « **Reply #1 on:** Feb 15, 2007, 01:02:24 PM »

Buncha crap!!! Wow!!

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance seeks to defend equal marriage in this state by challenging the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling on Andersen v. King County. This decision, given in July 2006, declared that a “legitimate state interest” allows the Legislature to limit marriage to those couples able to have and raise children together. Because of this “legitimate state interest,” it is permissible to bar same-sex couples from legal marriage.

The way we are challenging Andersen is unusual: using the initiative, we are working to put the Court’s ruling into law. We will do this through three initiatives. The first would make procreation a requirement for legal marriage. The second would prohibit divorce or legal separation when there are children. The third would make the act of having a child together the legal equivalent of a marriage ceremony.

Absurd? Very. But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions which make up the Andersen ruling. By getting the initiatives passed, we hope the Supreme Court will strike them down as unconstitutional and thus weaken Andersen itself. And at the very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric.

weirdtimes_7 · « **Reply #2 on:** Feb 15, 2007, 01:20:47 PM »

i don't have to say anything... it's not going to happen/pass..... plus, you all may disagree, but i think if two people love each other... let them be together... i'm not saying it's a bad thing for them to get married...

And yes, i am Christian, and yes, i do think marriage should be held between a man and a woman.... but if two people of the same sex want to wed.... then what is it our place to tell them no???

military_stang

red · « **Reply #3 on:** Feb 15, 2007, 01:41:26 PM »

i disagree with your beliefs military stang, but thats another thread.

personally i dont see why these legislators even bother with stuff such as this when we have much bigger problems to worry about. its like the bill they tried to pass a few weeks ago in cali that stated you cannot physically touch your child to punish them. no spanking, just stern words would be allowed. didnt pass thankfully, but their wasting time on stuff like this when they should be worried about illegal immigration for example.

CTENG in KS · « **Reply #4 on:** Feb 15, 2007, 02:51:05 PM »

I don't know red...I think civil rights might be THE most important fight on earth. Yours, mine, straight, gay...

red · « **Reply #5 on:** Feb 15, 2007, 03:24:00 PM »

Quote from: CTENG in KS on Feb 15, 2007, 02:51:05 PM

I don't know red...I think civil rights might be THE most important fight on earth. Yours, mine, straight, gay...

true.

jimbo74 · « **Reply #6 on:** Feb 15, 2007, 03:43:03 PM »

i like having kids, but i think that is overboard. the govt should have no say on if you have kids or not

DTB · « **Reply #7 on:** Feb 15, 2007, 03:55:09 PM »

thats the last effing thing we need is the government to tell us to bring more kids into this already overpopulated world

just ask mrsw

Willy Mammoth · « **Reply #8 on:** Feb 15, 2007, 04:02:06 PM »

That would make me a free man

That is just ludicrous. I don't want kids and I don't want to be a throwback either.

red · « **Reply #9 on:** Feb 15, 2007, 04:53:55 PM »

i dont see a point in it. if a man and a woman love each other and want to get married, but dont want kids, i dont see a problem with it.

BLACKDOG · « **Reply #10 on:** Feb 15, 2007, 05:01:55 PM »

THis is absolutely retarded

CTENG in KS · « **Reply #11 on:** Feb 15, 2007, 06:11:54 PM »

Quote from: red on Feb 15, 2007, 04:53:55 PM

i dont see a point in it. if a man and a woman love each other and want to get married, but dont want kids, i dont see a problem with it.

The entire argument in this thread is the reason for the law. If two men or two women love each other, why should anyone see a problem with them getting married. Essentially it is their civil right. It is only a matter of time until the bigots are outnumbered and gays are given their due rights.

The purpose of the legislation is to force those same bigots who passed the law to put their money where their mouth is and either give gays their legal rights, or admit publicly that they believe homosexuals do not qualify as American citizens.

Don't fool yourself...your religion or your bible may say that homosexuality is wrong, but in the real world, not affording a human their due civil rights is prejudice and bigotry and should NOT be tolerated in this country.

kneedownnate · « **Reply #12 on:** Feb 15, 2007, 08:19:26 PM »

Quote from: red on Feb 15, 2007, 01:41:26 PM

personally i dont see why these legislators even bother with stuff such as this when we have much bigger problems to worry about

Not to mention all the money that's wasted for them coming up with these things!

red · « **Reply #13 on:** Feb 15, 2007, 08:36:37 PM »

my personal view on gays is that they have mental issues that they need to work out, call me a bigot if you want but that is my personal view. and no, i'm not religous, not against religion but not for it.

lets say there is a couple where either the husband or the wife is sterile. according to this bill, they couldnt be married because they cant have a child. no civil union, no marriage, nothing. basicly kept at a dating level.

not to mention that this legislation is a waste of time and money. civil union for gays, is, well, completely wrong in my opinion but it is their civil right.

CTENG in KS · « **Reply #14 on:** Feb 16, 2007, 09:40:50 AM »

Quote from: red on Feb 15, 2007, 08:36:37 PM

not to mention that this legislation is a waste of time and money. civil union for gays, is, well, completely wrong in my opinion but it is their civil right.

If I recall correctly there are no civil unions in Washington...part of the reason for all the fuss. Your admitting flat out that you impose a double standard for gays. If the argument for the defence of marriage is that marriage exists between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation, then you cannot allow anyone who is not in the process of, or unable to have children to marry. OR you have to allow EVERYONE the opportunity to marry and enjoy the legal benefits that come with marriage.

Lady Di · « **Reply #15 on:** Feb 16, 2007, 10:01:26 AM »

Quote from: DirToyBoy on Feb 15, 2007, 03:55:09 PM

thats the last effing thing we need is the government to tell us to bring more kids into this already overpopulated world just ask mrsw

do not get me started :eeky:

red · « **Reply #16 on:** Feb 16, 2007, 10:11:41 AM »

Quote from: CTENG in KS on Feb 16, 2007, 09:40:50 AM

If I recall correctly there are no civil unions in Washington...part of the reason for all the fuss. Your admitting flat out that you impose a double standard for gays. If the argument for the defence of marriage is that marriage exists between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation, then you cannot allow anyone who is not in the process of, or unable to have children to marry. OR you have to allow EVERYONE the opportunity to marry and enjoy the legal benefits that come with marriage.

you missread my post cteng. i stated that i personally believe that gay marriage is wrong, but it is their civil right to be united. if the governments in each state decide that gay marriage is ok, but they want to call it a civil union, i dont see a problem with that. same benefits, same everything except for instead of having "marriage" written down on the paperwork they have "civil union" written. also, i'm not stating that marriage's sole purpose is for procreation between a man and a woman, i never stated that. if there is a couple that is married but dont want kids, i see no problem with that.

CTENG in KS · « **Reply #17 on:** Feb 16, 2007, 10:23:46 AM »

I didn't misread. The crux of the legislation is that Washington has no provision, be it CU's or marriage, for gays. They are trying to use the wording of the Defense of Marriage law against those who passed it in order to get a fair shake for gays.

The legislation in and of itself is silly, but the purpose behind the action is quite serious and, if you ask me, very smart and creative politics.

79coyotefrg · « **Reply #18 on:** Feb 16, 2007, 10:35:28 AM »

and what about all the god feerin redneck totally freekin STUPID

that will be trying to have babies that shoulda been steralized when they was born

my ex brother in law being one of those

CTENG in KS · « **Reply #19 on:** Feb 16, 2007, 10:47:16 AM »

Glen brings up an excellent point here. Idiots should not be breeding.

red · « **Reply #20 on:** Feb 16, 2007, 10:59:32 AM »

Quote from: CTENG in KS on Feb 16, 2007, 10:47:16 AM

Glen brings up an excellent point here. Idiots should not be breeding.

cant dissagree with that lol. i think carlos mencia put it better though. if your a dee, and you have sex with a dee, then your kids gonna be a DEE DEE DEE!!

kneedownnate · « **Reply #21 on:** Feb 16, 2007, 10:16:21 PM »

Quote from: CTENG in KS on Feb 16, 2007, 10:47:16 AM

Glen brings up an excellent point here. Idiots should not be breeding.

My family has said this for years: stupid people shouldn't breed!

red [OP]

red [OP]

red [OP]

red [OP]

red [OP]

red [OP]

Related Topics