People who believe in marriage equality are fighting fire with fire, finally. Using the initative process to their advantage to take away nonsensical arguments against same sex marriage.

 

A Proposed Washington State initiative would require married couples to have a baby within three years or their marriage would no longer be considered valid.

 

“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."

 

And state ballot initiative leader and gay prostitute using pastor Ted Haggard has now become "completely heterosexual."

 

The Rev. Ted Haggard emerged from three weeks of intensive counseling convinced he is "completely heterosexual" and told an oversight board that his sexual contact with men was limited to his accuser.

 

That is according to one of the disgraced pastor's overseers, who on Monday revealed new details about where Haggard has been and where he is headed.

 

The Rev. Tim Ralph of Larkspur also said the four-man oversight board strongly urged Haggard to go into secular work instead of Christian ministry if Haggard and his wife follow through on plans to earn master's degrees in psychology.

People who believe in marriage equality are fighting fire with fire, finally. Using the initative process to their advantage to take away nonsensical arguments against same sex marriage.

 

A Proposed Washington State initiative would require married couples to have a baby within three years or their marriage would no longer be considered valid.

And state ballot initiative leader and gay prostitute using pastor Ted Haggard has now become "completely heterosexual."

 

 

Wow...

 

 

and

 

 

Wow...

*sigh*

 

These people are totally screwed in the head.

*sigh*

 

These people are totally screwed in the head.

And, it would appear, in a few other places.

This might have come out incorrectly....

 

Ted Haggard promoted Colorado's marriage amendment last year, where he was a pastor of a megachurch.

 

But if people who support gay marriage bans want to use this as a reason to ban gay marriage, they ought to put their money where there mouth is.

This might have come out incorrectly....

 

Ted Haggard promoted Colorado's marriage amendment last year, where he was a pastor of a megachurch.

 

But if people who support gay marriage bans want to use this as a reason to ban gay marriage, they ought to put their money where there mouth is.

 

I believe they need to put something else where their mouth is. That's the whole point

 

I can't believe this is America in 2007. Equal rights for equal people seems simple enough for me. All men are created equal.

Wow...

and

Wow...

 

 

You got me beat.. I couldn't get more than a "hu?" out.

 

So would those who are reproductively challenged be forced to divorce?

The idea is that supporters of gay marriage bans use as one of their primary arguments that gay couples can't reproduce and procreation is the main reason for government recognition of marriage.

 

If that's true, why should couples who can't have children be allowed to marry - when same sex couples can't? The proposal, btw, would require a fertility test before marriage licenses would be issued.

procreation is the main reason for government recognition of marriage.

 

I thought that it was a tax thang.

 

The proposal, btw, would require a fertility test before marriage licenses would be issued.

 

But I'm impotent, man!

 

Damn. Weak sperm, no tax break, etc. Life is hard on the boulevard.

You got me beat.. I couldn't get more than a "hu?" out.

 

So would those who are reproductively challenged be forced to divorce?

 

I was just thinking about that myself.

If one of the major justifications for marriage is procreation (and according to backers of most Marriage Amendments, it is), why isn't it already a requirement?

 

Because people marry for love. And love isn't hetero-exclusive. This initiative is a bad idea to enact. But it's no worse an idea than any other initiative that limits marriage between two consenting adults.