http://blognonymous.com/2007/02/no-children-no-marriage.html

Yeah. Come and get me.

Very interesting...an inventive way for them to make their point about gay marriage. But, as the blog mentions some on the far-right will take it seriously and say "Hell yes!". (Romney might even support it. Speculation of course)

Inventive. Yeah. That's one word for it.

Washingtonians wonder why Oregonians look north and scratch their heads sometimes? Okay, okay, we are all weird, quirky mountain lovers or we wouldn't be here, and I love your state. We are still sorry we let Tonya Harding leave and get arrested in Vancouver for road rage. Our bad. We'll try to do better next time.

Still, you really gotta keep hold of the wingnuts, or at least catch them before the rest of us find out about them. Your lawmakers have more important things to do. I am not sure that the legislature needed to tackle this one either:

Cause:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002389068_brodeur19m.html

Effect:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002838346_bestiality02m.html

One other thing to note.

I love seeing folks who rear a great family. I see them at the ballgame, the store and in the park. I love seeing happy people. Unfortunately, marriages also result in the production of unhappy people and a few even spawn freaks like the Green River Killer. If it really were up to debate, straight marriage is not exactly a shining institution. Making babies can sometimes be the most irresponsible thing a couple does, so please do not encourage it with a statute.

Like many of my contemporaries, I enjoy a monogamous existence with a woman I have known for 18 years of my 36. We are not married, but we have many things in common with our married friends. Many of those friends, like us, have no children by choice. Some, I imagine, could not have them for solid medical reasons. Others still, found each other and were married long after the children they raised were gone.

Dumb law. Homophobic. A waste of time.

Homophobia is stupid. Let me say it again, just so everyone can hear. Homophobia is stupid. Got it?

If that boy over there and that other boy over there love each other, then those are two boys you are not competing with for the affection of the girls. Can all of us straight men finally get a grasp on this reality?

On an atomic level, it simply gives us more of the particles we want to bond with, doesn't it? Hello dummy, they are handsome, us, not so much, so give them props for giving us a chance to hook up. They know you are straight and are not interested in you. Please, do not screw up a good thing with laws. Any laws. It is a win-win.

If any two people anywhere want to share the bills, share a life and share a bed, let them. If that sends them down the aisle, great, that is traditional. So is the misery of marriage, some say. Either way, it is no concern of yours or mine or the lawmakers to choose who those two people might be or whether they can act like any other adults who love each other.

Littlesongs, while your points are valid, you may be missing the point of what this group is doing. They are actually FOR gay marriage and are pointing out the conservative far right's argument that marriages should be for procreation only. Their hope is to get the gay marriage ban overturned in Washington State. If their goal was to get people talking about this again, they are succeeding in an interesting way. Waste of government time and money? Maybe, but I think they are accomplishing what they wanted to.

What a riot!

I wish I had time to start a ballot measure saying that government didn't have the power to recognize marriages.

Civil unions, OK. Any two people can get together to formalize a living arrangement, and get the tax benefits, rights of succession, etc.

But for reasons of separation of church and state, religious bodies and others can perform marriages ... but government has to stay out of spiritual relationships.

Keeps the "defense of marriage" people happy because it doesn't legalize same-sex marriage. At the same time, there's no discrimination against gays.

NO ONE gets a government marriage. You get a marriage in the spiritual group of your choice, and a government civil union along with it.

Mea Culpa.

NO ONE gets a government marriage.

Yep. This would solve a lot of problems.

Unless you live in Utah. Then you get a few. But NO more than a few. It's the sanctity that we need to keep! Over and over and over.

I figure they are the meat-eaters equivalent to " For every animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat three " t-shirt wearers.

" For every gay marriage that is allowed, I'm going to marry three women."

What's next? Marrying underage children? What? That is passe' already? Way to go Weird Godly Folks!

No haminals' fists were harmed in this post.

Please put this on the 2008 ballot.