Same-Sex Proponents Throw a Tantrum
This would be funny if it weren’t intended to be serious (and frankly, I’m not completely sure that’s the intent). Same-sex proponents in Washington State, in an attempt to get social conservatives “dosed with their own medicine”, have filed an initiative.
OLYMPIA, Wash. – An initiative filed by proponents of same-sex marriage would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriage annulled.
Initiative 957 was filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance. That group was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington’s ban on same-sex marriage.
Under the initiative, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children in order to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriage would be subject to annulment.
All other marriages would be defined as “unrecognized” and people in those marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.
If they were a child under the care of Super Nanny, they’d be sent to the Naughty Corner. Instead, we have adults who didn’t get their way and are pitching a fit and putting forth an obviously frivolous initiative. And the organizer of this lets us know precisely what his error is (see the bolded word below):
“For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation … The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine,” said WA-DOMA organizer Gregory Gadow in a printed statement. “If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage.”
“For many years” this debate has been going on, and he still can’t honestly represent his opposition. The faulty logic here is breathtaking, starting with the straw man constructed in the first sentence. When has any mainstream opponent of same-sex marriage ever used the word “solely” in regards to child-bearing in marriage? Even a quote that says it’s “primarily” for children or that it is the “best” for children does not imply what this initiative would cast into law, that it must.
In an attempt to sort of sound reasonable, they say they just want a dialog.
Opponents say the measure is another attack on traditional marriage, but supporters say the move is needed to have a discussion on the high court ruling.
They can’t talk about it until they get their whining done first. And frankly, the debate was pretty much over in Washington State when the same-sex marriage ban survived the path up to and including the state Supreme Court. This is just the rantings of children who didn’t get their way. If you want to talk about it, then talk, and don’t waste your neighbors’ time and money with ballot initiatives guaranteed to fail.
Technorati Tags: same-sex marriage, homosexuality, Washington state, Initiative 957, Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, Gregory Gadow
Filed under: Culture • Homosexuality
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
You right-wing propagandists are a trip. “Tantrum”. Sounds more like you can’t handle someone calling your bluff. Tantrum indeed. For all that pap about families and procreation, the only consistency is to deny the gays legal rights to protect their families.
We knew you were full of bologna, but don’t accuse me of throwing a tantrum just because I challenge you demonstrate the courage of your convictions.
Just admit it — it’s not about family, procreation, or sacred institutions — you just don’t like gay folk.
What bluff? This has been a very open and honest debate from the Right; said exactly what we wanted, and the vast majority has been voting for it. Nobody, not even the folks pushing this initiative, believe it will pass. That’s a tantrum.
And they’re trying to make a point against a straw man they erected. More tantrum.
I’d be more than willing to cast my vote against such a measure (if I lived there). No bluff to call, since as I said that’s not been the sole issue. If same-sex marriage proponents want to talk, talk. They shouldn’t create pretend arguments and declare that they win.