Religions > Atheism > Re: (Washington) Defense of Marriage Initiative Accepted By Sec. of State
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
28 Jan 2007 02:07:48 PM |
| Object: |
Re: (Washington) Defense of Marriage Initiative Accepted By Sec. of State |
On Jan 28, 1:28 pm, Gregory Gadow <techb...@serv.net> wrote:
DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE INITIATIVE ACCEPTED BY SECRETARY OF STATE - January
26, 2007
Seattle, WA - The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance (WA-DOMA)
announced on Thursday that their proposed initiative to make procreation
a requirement for legal marriage has been accepted by the Secretary of
State and assigned the serial number 957. The initiative has been in the
planning stages since the Washington Supreme Court ruled last July that
the state's Defense of Marriage Act was constitutional.
"For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists
solely for the purpose of procreation," said WA-DOMA organizer Gregory
Gadow in a printed statement. "The Washington Supreme Court echoed that
claim in their lead ruling on Andersen v. King County. The time has come
for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine. If same-sex
couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have
children together, it follows that all couples who can not or will not
Nothing follows except in the mind of Evildoers. If opposite sex
couple
can't have children, it would be for medical reason, and not for
biological
reason. Show me a same sex couple relationship
where one partner ever got pregnant
and the argument in favor of procreation will fall flat on the floor.
have children together should equally be barred from marriage. And this
is what the Defense of Marriage Initiative will do."
------------
For more information about I-957, please visit the website for the
Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance:http://www.wa-doma.org
--
Gregory Gadow
techb...@serv.net
Help defend marriage in Washington state!http://www.wa-doma.org
.
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: (Washington) Defense of Marriage Initiative Accepted By Sec. ofState |
29 Jan 2007 08:45:14 AM |
|
|
"Codebreaker@bigsecret.com" wrote:
On Jan 28, 1:28 pm, Gregory Gadow <techb...@serv.net> wrote:
DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE INITIATIVE ACCEPTED BY SECRETARY OF STATE - January
26, 2007
Seattle, WA - The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance (WA-DOMA)
announced on Thursday that their proposed initiative to make procreation
a requirement for legal marriage has been accepted by the Secretary of
State and assigned the serial number 957. The initiative has been in the
planning stages since the Washington Supreme Court ruled last July that
the state's Defense of Marriage Act was constitutional.
"For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists
solely for the purpose of procreation," said WA-DOMA organizer Gregory
Gadow in a printed statement. "The Washington Supreme Court echoed that
claim in their lead ruling on Andersen v. King County. The time has come
for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine. If same-sex
couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have
children together, it follows that all couples who can not or will not
Nothing follows except in the mind of Evildoers. If opposite sex
couple
can't have children, it would be for medical reason, and not for
biological
reason. Show me a same sex couple relationship
where one partner ever got pregnant
and the argument in favor of procreation will fall flat on the floor.
The Washington Supreme Court made no mention of biology. They declared that
there existed a "legitimate state interest" in defining and preserving
marriage for the purpose of having and raising children, and that the
Legislature was fully authorized to do what it felt necessary to enforce that
legitimate state interest.
Why are you upset at having the Court's ruling put into law? If marriage does
exist for the purpose of procreation, as conservatives have been saying for
many years, certainly the only people who should be allowed to get married are
those couples able and willing to procreate. Right?
If you think this is unfair, you are better off addressing your concerns to
the Washington Supreme Court judge who wrote that opinion, and the two other
justices who signed on to it. (The other two justices who made up the five
judge majority signed a different ruling.) THEY are the ones who put this into
motion. All we at WA-DOMA are trying to do is put their ruling into statutory
form in order to eliminate accusations of an activist judiciary. Certainly you
can't object to that.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
Help defend marriage in Washington state.
Please support Initiative 957!
http://www.wa-doma.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: (Washington) Defense of Marriage Initiative Accepted By Sec. ofState |
30 Jan 2007 10:23:43 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 06:45:14 -0800, Gregory Gadow wrote:
"Codebreaker@bigsecret.com" wrote:
On Jan 28, 1:28 pm, Gregory Gadow <techb...@serv.net> wrote:
DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE INITIATIVE ACCEPTED BY SECRETARY OF STATE - January
26, 2007
Seattle, WA - The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance (WA-DOMA)
announced on Thursday that their proposed initiative to make procreation
a requirement for legal marriage has been accepted by the Secretary of
State and assigned the serial number 957. The initiative has been in the
planning stages since the Washington Supreme Court ruled last July that
the state's Defense of Marriage Act was constitutional.
"For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists
solely for the purpose of procreation," said WA-DOMA organizer Gregory
Gadow in a printed statement. "The Washington Supreme Court echoed that
claim in their lead ruling on Andersen v. King County. The time has come
for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine. If same-sex
couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have
children together, it follows that all couples who can not or will not
Nothing follows except in the mind of Evildoers. If opposite sex
couple
can't have children, it would be for medical reason, and not for
biological
reason.
<piggy backing, didn't see the OP>
I do love the idea of a "medical reason" that's not biological in nature...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe is fine tuned
for life is akin to a puddle being surprised at how well it
fits its hole" - Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
