Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Big Brother rears his ugly head.
1 posted on 02/06/2007 2:25:44 PM PST by RoadTest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last
To: RoadTest

When will our officials grow a set of balls and tell these people to sit down and shut up? Oh wait a minute, I think I see the problem!


2 posted on 02/06/2007 2:27:35 PM PST by Khepera (Do not remove by penalty of law!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoadTest
the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance

This is their name? Wow!

3 posted on 02/06/2007 2:27:45 PM PST by paudio (WoT is more important than War on Gay Marriage!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoadTest

The URL for the straight couples article is:

http://www.nwcn.com/statenews/washington/stories/NW_020507WABinitiative957SW.546c6a4d.html

It didn't require that I register, at this URL.


4 posted on 02/06/2007 2:29:45 PM PST by RoadTest (Get our Marines out of Pendleton's Kangaroo court!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoadTest

What idiots.


5 posted on 02/06/2007 2:29:50 PM PST by Tx Angel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoadTest

It's not "Big Brother." It's an annoying, pro-gay Special Interest Group with a purposefully confusing name!

http://www.wa-doma.org/

"What we are about

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.

Absurd? Very. But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions which make up the Andersen ruling. By getting the initiatives passed, we hope the Supreme Court will strike them down as unconstitional and thus weaken Andersen itself. And at the very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric."


6 posted on 02/06/2007 2:31:20 PM PST by Diana in Wisconsin (Save The Earth. It's The Only Planet With Chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoadTest

Why three years?


8 posted on 02/06/2007 2:32:55 PM PST by stevem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoadTest

Nothing more than a hissy fit.


9 posted on 02/06/2007 2:33:45 PM PST by NonValueAdded (Pelosi, the call was for Comity, not Comedy. But thanks for the laughs. StarKisses, NVA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoadTest

Washington State, Oregon, California all enjoy wonderful and peaceful trade with the Far East. The confucian (sp) way of life has really rubbed off on our peace loving liberals of the far west. Someone ought to tell them they are enjoying the peaceful life because we blasted Shinto Japan to hell. Somebody ought to remind them, stupid tools that they are.


10 posted on 02/06/2007 2:40:13 PM PST by kinghorse (calls them like I sees them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoadTest
Worthless freaks of nature.
11 posted on 02/06/2007 2:40:16 PM PST by Gay State Conservative ("The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism."-Karl Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoadTest

You can count on one thing - a President Giuliani won't do anything to help out in this fight.


13 posted on 02/06/2007 2:41:08 PM PST by Old_Mil (http://www.gohunter08.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoadTest

The fruits are getting snippy.


14 posted on 02/06/2007 2:42:46 PM PST by sgtbono2002 (I will forgive Jane Fonda, when the Jews forgive Hitler.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoadTest
This is a nonsense bill, to prove that gays "deserve" permission to marry, now that they have "proved" that homosexual behavoir is not a mental disorder, by thirty years of MSM brain-washing.

The nancy boys want us "breeders" to be required to have children, just to prove that they should be barred from marrying.

It's never ceases to amaze me how many Freepers have been worn down to the point that, although they know, deep down, that homosexual behavior is WRONG, they just shove the whole question aside by saying, "It's in their own bedroom, why should I care..."

I just believe that the actual measure of sanity should be a little higher than, "Can he, she, it get a driver's licence?"

15 posted on 02/06/2007 2:45:58 PM PST by jonascord ("Don't shoot 'em! Let 'em burn!...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoadTest

Mainland China thrives in Washington State.


18 posted on 02/06/2007 3:16:29 PM PST by billhilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BADROTOFINGER

WA Ping......


19 posted on 02/06/2007 3:18:34 PM PST by The SISU kid (Imagination saved us from extinction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoadTest

Yikes! These folks are off thier rockers.


21 posted on 02/06/2007 3:35:35 PM PST by OMalley (Hi Mom:) Duncan Hunter 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoadTest

The Pro-Queer Group has drafted 3 initiatives. This is one of 3. They hope to get the initiatives passed and then challenged by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court throws out these initiatives out followed by the Defense Marriage Act (one man one woman) which the Supreme Court upheld last year. It's a gimmick to further the queers agenda and get rid of the Defense Marriage Act. Hope it backfires on them.


22 posted on 02/06/2007 3:38:43 PM PST by lilylangtree (Veni, Vidi, Vici)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoadTest

What nonsense. How can we be expected to take these people seriously when they pull stunts like this?


23 posted on 02/06/2007 3:42:13 PM PST by Not A Snowbird (Temporarily Posting from Washington DC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoadTest
Better yet, why not pass a bill requiring couples who have children out of wedlock to marry?

-PJ

24 posted on 02/06/2007 3:43:25 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (It's still not safe to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoadTest

I am speechless.


27 posted on 02/06/2007 3:50:14 PM PST by Arizona Carolyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: RoadTest
Couples would be required to prove they can have children...

That will sure make the waiting line for a marriage license more interesting.

28 posted on 02/06/2007 4:04:50 PM PST by Random Access
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson