This is hilarious.
The Supreme Court in my own dear little Washington State previously upheld the 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, banning same-sex marriage and specifically mentioning "a state interest in furthering procreation". Now, an initiative has been introduced responding to that - by suggesting that heterosexual couples would be required to have children within three years of being married, or have their marriages automatically annulled!
Now, the pro-gay Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, who is sponsoring the initiative, has itself admitted that it is absurd and has no hope of passing. Still, I think it's brilliant. What will the next argument be from the Supreme Court banning same-sex marriage? It's not traditional ("that's the way things have always been done around here")? It's not what God intended (one interpretation of the Bible, yes - but don't forget all the sanctioned polygamy in the Old Testament)? It's a sin (again, an interpretation - and don't forget that pesky "separation of church and state" thing!)?
I'm looking forward to the debate on this. Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
As much as I'd like to vote something screwed up like that in (just in order to make all of those "pro create" nuts squirm), I think it's ludicrous. This world is so messed up. Really messed up.
If i lived there I would vote for it... awesome idea...
Awesome...
I've always wondered where the "in defence of marriage" groups are on divorce... where's the outcry to make that illegal if they are so worried about the state of everyone elses union!?
Never understood the big ado about two people wanting to get married. If two people want to marry, they should be able to.
Post a Comment