Arrggghhhh, my poor very, very catholic friend has to get a divorce... They haven't been able to make babies in the past 5 years...

   

Classic straw man argument.

I don't recall anythng about 'children' in my marriage vows. I remember 'being faithful and forsaking all others' though. Marriage is about being faithful to one person 'for as long as you both shall live'.

'Children' is optional. And can be adopted. Some choose pets as 'children', because they know they wouldn't be good parents to human children.

   

Not a bad idea to encourage births. But people could also start leaving this state for elsewhere.

   

Washington is not a gay state. We just have very imaginative people.

On the other hand... why get married if you don't want to have children?

The problem is that gays are a minority, but don't have minority rights. Why not them be as miserable as anyone else? Let them get married.

.... kind of like - Why is it ok to get blasted on alcohol but not on pot? Just all political preference...

   

Of course, I have children so all is well. However, I think this is deliciously ironic. I will definitely be voting in favor of it. Washington state politics are pretty fucked right now so it would be entertaining to see our politicians jump through hoops and try to find a rationalization for not implementing another initiative.

Of course, at the end of the day the Washington Supreme Court will throw over the theocrats, come to their senses, and figure out that family is about things other than just children. Things that should be available to everyone.

   

The fags in the US are getting desperate, they know that every state that had a ballot defining marriage between a man and a woman passed. Imagine a place where the people actually decide what they want as the norm.

   

Imagine a place that didn't have the government dictating what said norm was. If you're all about letting people decide, hwacker, why not let people decide who they want to marry?

   

The people did decide. unlike Canada.

   

So a couple marry and for some inexplicable reason they can't produce a child, or something happens that renders one of them unable to produce a child, or worse yet the woman has multiple miscarriages. Now because they can't produce children you would have their marriage annulled??? I guess your idea of delicious is shit, because that's what this idea is.

You've proudly referred to yourself as a bleeding heart, well taking pleasure from this proves you are just that. Obviously the blood that should be reaching your brain is leaking out somewhere else.

How about we pass legislation that allows the State to remove children from a single parent family where the parent is unemployed. We all know that many criminals and troubled individuals come from one parent families that have financial difficulties.

   

No, it's a strawman. My reasoning has always been 'because the majority wants it that way' - nothing to do with kids.

By the other definition, a single mom is 'married' because she has kids.

   

Or how about the elderly couple that's been married 25 years and rely on one spouses medical insurance. I believe I've said, "my heart bleads, but not often". Ultimately, the laws would get changed. It was after all the Washington courts that implied kids were fundamental to marriage. This is just taking the court at it's ill thought out words.