So marriage is about procreation? That's what Washington state's Defense of Marriage Act suggests, and the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance means to make them follow through on it. Enter Initiative 957, which would require a couple to prove that they can have children before they are allowed to marry, and make them have a child within the first three years of marriage or face annulment.
(Via Cyborg Democracy.)
Thursday, February 15, 2007
A (pro)creative initiative
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Guess I'm a pinko commie treasonous liberal after all. Been married 30 years, no kids.
Hmmm . . .
R. Lee--
What? You haven't reproduced? Admit it: you *want* the terrorists to win. ;-)
That is, honestly, one of the strangest things I've ever heard, especially out of the northwest.
As someone who lives in the Northwest, it isn't all that weird. Wait; it's weird all right, but not that weird that weirdos like that would come up with something so stupidly weird.
I could swear I read that this was introduced by a PRO-homosexual group as a ploy to make conservative/traditional types accept a black and white legal definition of marriage/family, so they'd stop being fuckin' hypocrites every time they popped a bun into the oven out of wed-lock. Sort of a reverse psychology thing. Am I wrong?
All this needs is a little google news action to clear up.
Dustin, everyone-
It's absolutely a ploy to expose "marriage=procreation" as bullshit -- and a funny one, I think.
Haha, nicely said Regan. It's not the kind of weird that weirdos like. I think I'll quote that sometime.
Mac, it does seem to be exactly that, and it's really an odd way to go about it. However, it grabs attention while getting a point across, as I'm sure it was meant to.
I remember awhile back, when I had told someone how long we'd been married, and that we didn't have children: her response, in total shock was:
"But what do you do all day?"
Post a Comment