CommunityPam's House Blend

A ball of Freeper confusion over Washington's Defense of Marriage initiative

The Freepers are completely perplexed by Initiative 957, filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance. The citizen initiative (see my earlier post) is meant to show the absurdity of the state’s DOMA by proposing to limit marriage to couples capable of procreation.

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance seeks to defend equal marriage in this state by challenging the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling on Andersen v. King County. This decision, given in July 2006, declared that a “legitimate state interest” allows the Legislature to limit marriage to those couples able to have and raise children together. Because of this “legitimate state interest,” it is permissible to bar same-sex couples from legal marriage.

The way we are challenging Andersen is unusual: using the initiative, we are working to put the Court’s ruling into law. We will do this through three initiatives. The first would make procreation a requirement for legal marriage. The second would prohibit divorce or legal separation when there are children. The third would make the act of having a child together the legal equivalent of a marriage ceremony.

Well, when you wade into the swamps to see what the Freepi have to say, you’d swear that some believe 1) the measure is spot-on because it is so restrictive and 2) those who see the point of it, and are pissed because the initiative hits a nerve — it would affect their precious marriages…


Actual Freeper Quotes?

Just because a person can have a type of abnormal sex with the same sex, an animal or a tree stump has nothing to do with marriage! The only thing they can do is corrupt the meaning of marriage like they did with the once good word gay!

Simple Translation: We’re irrellevant, mentally ill folks… and since we can’t get you to pander to our mental illness.. we will continue to attack your sensibilities simply because we can.

This is gonna go over real well with every decent American.

Hahaha, they want to invent a temporary marriage that just goes away after 3 years. Hey they could combine them with housing eases. The whole enterprise could be managed by Harmony Corporation…to help you find that compatible and very special three-year spousal roommate.

this is utterly absurd!

Think about it – it is meant to be absurd.

But he said he highly doubts any of the initiatives will pass, and that they are being done “in the spirit of political street theater.”

As someone else said, “The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name” has become “The Love That Won’t Shut The Heck Up”.

If they can wreck traditional marriage and family structures they will be 90% of the way home. Isn’t it cool that the government is so intertwined with every facet of our lives that they can use the force of government to do that? Viva la government grande!

My Church says,”Homosexuals have a disordered mentality”. This latest act of “Tolerance” proves it.

This is a good counter to the argument that gays can’t get married because they can’t have kids together. You know, the “marriage is for procreation” argument. I always thought that was the lamest argument, and this shows why. Hopefully, this will keep traditional marriage supporters to the strong arguments they do have.

It’s the childishness of homosexual lobbyists that always amazes me. Wanting all the perks of adults, while refusing to act like adults. On this organization’s Web site, they explain the initiative in words to this effect: “The Christian Right says the purpose of marriage is to have children, and we can’t have children-so we can’t marry. Well, some of those . . . straight people can’t have children, either, so there. We’ll show you how it feels: We’ll nullify your right to marry. After all, if you can’t breed, you’re just like us.”

Their argument is basically Catholic-envy, since the Catholic Church has provisions for declaring that a marriage has been null. The Church says no marriage has taken place if the couple either didn’t understand the step they were taking, or were unable or unwilling to live up to their promises.

Like most comfortably ignorant Leftists, the lobbyists think that the Church teaches that the only purpose of marriage is becoming baby machines. Not so. A man and woman incapable of having children together are still capable, in theological terms, of marriage. As Catholics are taught, there are two purposes to marriage: unitive and procreative. Sex in particular is a means of enhancing spiritual unity with your spouse. Procreation is a miraculous benefit of marriage that we must be open to; the unitive purpose is non-negotiable. Everyone understands this, on some level. The lobbyists’ implicit claim is that homosexuality is unitive in a way that merits the name “marriage.” But it’s not truly unitive; it’s thwarted and perverse, the refuge of people too hurt to identify with their own sex and bond with the opposite sex.

Perverse behavior can’t be a sacrament. In secular terms, such relations are too damaged and unhealthy to serve as building blocks for society. These poor people are so confused that they’ve raised a good question. It has an an answer, and it’s up to us to give it loud and clear. Everyone will benefit.

The gay marriage advocates should be careful about opening this can of worms. If heteros have to produce children within three years, or face annulment, then homosexual couples have the same requirement. And once annulled, the homosexual couples would have to start the whole process of getting their marriage reinstated only after they have shown due diligence in learning whether they are physically capable of becoming parents. Or we could just go to “limited” cohabitation contracts, which are renewed upon the payment of an annual fee to the civil authorities, in which children are not involved at all. The gender of the contracting individuals would not be a matter of concern to the civil authorities in the least, but evasion of payment of the annual fee would become a criminally prosecutable offense.

So in other words – if my Wife and I lived there under this proposed law, we would currently be an unmarried couple with two children – we waited some 12 years to have our first child…

I sure miss the days when Homosexuals just stayed in the closet…

Previous post

The Trouble With Mary

Next post

On Bringing Me into the Feed

Pam Spaulding

Pam Spaulding

18 Comments