| Hilarious, but I don't think it'll pass. - tacofordinner [05.02.07::07:45]|| |
Hrm. Well, I can't have kids so I guess I won't ever be getting married in Washington.
| Be careful what you ask for... - hal_obrien [05.02.07::07:47]|| |
I understand what they're doing. That is, they seek to do a reductio ad absurdum and, "...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."
One small problem: Odds are, there is a substantial percentage of social conservatives who will see this bill as exactly what they want, and willfully "not get the joke."
In a state that cannot distinguish between Tim Eyman and a snake oil salesman, I think it entirely possible this initiative has a credible chance of passing. Especially east of the Cascades.
| Re: Be careful what you ask for... - chris [05.02.07::08:53]|| |
I dont think it matters if social conservatives get the joke or not. if they get what they want (this), then they lose any middle-grounders who might not support gay marriage but dont feel like having or can't have kids, and the bottom falls out of the movement. worst-case scenerio, the law lives for a year or two before general public outrage repeals it and replaces it with something much more broad, which would probably include same sex partnerships.
or, they never do repeal it and we all get to live with the rediculousness of it all and the egg never leaves the face of the religous right. The next step after that would then be to establish strict guidelines on who can get a license to procreate, and we all end up in some kind of children of men-ish/brazil-ish absurd distopia.
They should fine married couples exorbitant amounts if Homeland Security inspectors find them in possession of contraceptive devices.
i demand you personally see to it that this bill is passed so i can have an easy end to this sham of a marriage once and for all.
Who the hell ARE these fuckwits?? I think that their mothers should all be elegible for retroactive abortions.
I know quite a few couples who don't want to have kids (their right as human beings), and ones who would dearly love to have their own children, but are either having problems conceiving, or met and married later in life and that window has closed for them.
This is so totally unfair and cruel and just plain MEAN.
If there is a God, I sincerely hope that She has given Washington voters the intelligence and compassion in their hearts to see how fundamentally flawed and insidious this initiative is.
Holy Cow! I really can't believe this is real.
Is Tim Eyman behind this? This somehow smacks of his sort of political grandstanding and general idiocy. Even if he isn't, I know where that asshole lives, and I'd be willing to gather up paper sacks full of doggy doo from donors, and light them on his doorstep. C'mon! Who's with me on this??
I am a reactionary idiot. Yes...yes I am.
I usually read and research and get all sides to an issue before shooting my mouth off, but I've been sick the past couple of days, and my mind isn't functioning quite up to par, at the moment.
But at least now I understand what Mr. Gadow is trying to accomplish here. It took me a littlw while, but the light finally cam on over my head, and I get it.
It's a weird strategy, and I'm not sure how this is going to work, but it's definitely very interesting.
Mea culpa, mea stupido....and now, I'm going to bed, 'cause my head hurts....
You should let people know this actually appears (I think it does anyway) to be a liberial/progessive movement, a setup reminicent of Plessy v. Ferguson, which, unfortunately, backfired.
Of course this would also eliminate marriage for heterosexual couples that are physically incapable of having children (say if one was paralyzed from the waist down), as there is no provision for being qualified to adopt, nor language that says "if both parties were in perfect health." Also, it seems to force people into have children, or at least cause an invasion of privacy in the name of "defending marriage".
As for social conservatives, I don't think Catholics would support it because it subverts church doctrine. Vatican II said it was OK for married people to have sex if one of them was infertile, and this could potentially invalidate all of their marriages.
If people really want to address the marriage issue, they should pass a law stating that EVERYONE in Washington gets a civil union and that they have to go to a church, which traditionally has been the bastion of marriage in the Western world, to get married.
Marriage doesn't really make sense in terms of taxes until you have children anyway. I think we should require that the family witness/verify the consummation of the marriage, as they did in the good ol' days.
It's clever and interesting, but overall most people will be so reactive and judgmental to it there will be very little discussion and "social awakening".
the real issue that needs to be addressed is divorce/widowdom. also, single parenting. why hasn't anyone had the balls to talk about these evils threatening the sanctity of marriage!??!!!!!
It's a cute idea, since it might actually compel the anti-gay marriage folks to abandon the phony "won't somebody PLEASE think of the CHILDREN?!?!" technique for the more honest "Ew, homo humping GROSS" strategy.
But on the other hand, I can actually see how this could backfire. Since getting engaged I've been stunned at the amount of couples who say that their reproducing has made their love so much more "real". Intelligent, lefty types of people. Combine that with the hard-core right wing who actually do think that you shouldn't be doing anything to prevent kids in the context of a marriage, and the large number of people who plan to have kids pretty soon after marriage and are vaguely squicked about gays, and it could pass.
A vasectomy instantly renders a man single for life, right on!
They don't appear to define 'procreation', so can you procreate, abort, rinse repeat?
There really shouldn't be any laws encouraging procreation, not even sarcastically. There are almost 7B people on this planet. It is estimated that, every day, upwards of 5B of them can't get access to one or more of the following basics: 1) adequate shelter, 2) clean water, and 3) healthy food (and enough of it). This doesn't even include quality-of-life issues, like education, which would take one beyond minimal existence. There is also an estimate that pretty much all of this planet's resources will be depleted by 2050. I realize that Americans use much more, of everything, per person, than the rest of the world, but if 99% of the global population were to die, randomly, then the remaining 70M people, spread out, would be more than enough humanity to keep the species going. Overall, rather than having useless laws, it's better to devote more resources, of all kinds, per person, with no people left wanting, in order to encourage and maximize directed evolution.