badstar

First off...i posted this without reading completely clearly, but have sience edited my own comments appropriately. There's an article posted in the comments to this....this is not really as disturbing as I initially thought.
Second...I'm reasonably sure I have my HTML fixed.
Third...no, I don't but I give up. Every time I try to fix somehting, something else winds up all messed up. (That's what I getfor playing around in rich text instead of using HTML I guess.)




http://www.komotv.com/news/5566451.html


Is anyone able to get the full text of this article? Only the top graphics on the page will load for me, I think because of the pop-up blocker here in the office.

I see this much of it in an RSS feed:

I-957 WOULD REQUIRE MARRIED COUPLES TO HAVE KIDS

Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced an initiative that would put a whole new twist on traditional unions between men and women: It would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriages annulled.

Initiative 957 was filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, which was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage. In that 5-4 ruling, the court found that state lawmakers were justified in passing the 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which restricts marriage to unions between a man and woman.

Under I-957, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriages would be subject to annulment.

All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized" and people in them would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits. 


I think it's ludicrous to believe that anyhitng like this would be passed. But...it's scary that anyone should even be proposing it.  <lj user="blackpaladin"> has pointed out my oversight of the "Proponents of same-sex marriage" bit and <lj user="zahirablue"> posted a link to another version of the article on the same website that makes more sense...not quite so disturbing now.

Here's the text of the initiative: http://www.wa-doma.org/Initiative.aspx ( I cut it in case you don't want to visit the website. It's pretty long. )