thats right, gay activists introduced an initiative that would make it illegal for anyone not able to procreate to get married and three years after marrying the couple has to provide a proof of procreation.
http://www.kndo.com/Global/story.asp?S=602682 … enu484_2_8
http://www.kndo.com/Global/story.asp?S=602682 … enu484_2_8
What the hell? Anyone able to clear the intent up here? I really don't get this article.
it's not really explicitly said in the article, but I assume that this is being proposed to make the point that just because a couple is unable to procreate doesn't invalidate their potential for marriage? that's what I assume, at least. the article doesn't seem to even attempt to explain this.
well its the newest attempt at trying to not allow gays to get married
So it's not gay rights activists, but anti-gay activists who are putting in this initiative that was approved?
It seemed to me that the gay rights activists were putting this initiative up to somehow get marriage rights, but had to add the procreation thing, which I really don't understand since it is against their cause.
At any rate, if it's the anti-gay activists / homophobes then whoever is for that initiative isn't thinking about the other exceptions it is making. Infertile man/woman couples can't get married either? Other non-children couples can't marry? The procreation part is stupid overall. You get a marriage tax break because you can prove that you're procreatable? Sure wish that was the case for single people, forget all the sexuality contention.
It seemed to me that the gay rights activists were putting this initiative up to somehow get marriage rights, but had to add the procreation thing, which I really don't understand since it is against their cause.
At any rate, if it's the anti-gay activists / homophobes then whoever is for that initiative isn't thinking about the other exceptions it is making. Infertile man/woman couples can't get married either? Other non-children couples can't marry? The procreation part is stupid overall. You get a marriage tax break because you can prove that you're procreatable? Sure wish that was the case for single people, forget all the sexuality contention.
the article does say "gay rights activists." so yeah, I guess either that's wrong, or they're doing it to make a point.
CNN covers this story as well ... don't have the link ATM, but they do go into the fact that the activist who's putting the bill up to vote doesn't expect it to pass but would rather it help start debate between people.