Is turnabout fair play?
The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance (WA-DOMA) announced on Thursday that their proposed initiative to make procreation a requirement for legal marriage has been accepted by the Secretary of State and assigned the serial number 957.
[…]
If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who can not or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage.
Actual document here.
h/t Waldo and Just a Bump
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
The immediate reaction is to go “yeah!”, but then my head pops after I imagine the people that this is aimed at reproducing . . .
Of course, this is not turnabout; it is about bitter, far-Left insanity.
This is as much about language as it is about the legal purposes of marriage. Conservatives view — with historical support — “marriage” to be a contract between one man and one (sometimes more) woman, and the family as the fundamental building block of civil society. The far Left wants to redefine “marriage” into something it has never been, largely out of (1) their positivist legal ideology; (2) their view of “marriage” as a government-benefits distribution system; and (3) their desire to mainstream perverse sexual behavior.
The fact is, most Conservatives don’t care what homosexuals do in their private lives, so long as they keep them private. But that doesn’t satisfy the far Left, and partisans for the radical homosexual agenda, who desire “acceptance.” But no one is entitled to “acceptance” for their behavioral choices.
This is far better than bemoaning homophobia, lamenting unfairness and all the other tactics of the left on this. Satire is deadly.
I don’t get your argument James. The government has a legal purpose in creating a legal structure that will breed the next generation. If a married man and woman, or several women don’t produce offspring, they should not receive legal benefits. The “government-benefits distribution system” is the law of the land because it promotes “the fundamental building block”, not because of far Left social engineering.
We don’t want to give non-procreating heterosexual couples those legal benefits so they can practice and practice and practice…yet never produce babies. That would be unseemly. Same goes for those retirement age couples who think they can get married. No babies, no bennies! Anyways, we need to protect our children from the idea that granny and gramps are doin the nasty.
I doubt this would be very effective. First of all, this would have zero chance of passing. Even people in favor of gay marriage should see this as an awful tactic and would say that it does not fit within the idea of “equality” either. It may also turn more people against homosexuality seeing such a blatant attack on marriage. We might see many people shrug it off, but those who know they cannot have kids (though how many do before they get married?) will see this as a direct shot at their lives from the far left lobby, not from conservatives.
Look, everyone, the author of “Sceptical Observor”, accusing someone of “insanity” . . .
James, you’re what you always feared you were – the kid that everyone laughs at.
To all the social conservatives out there: What exactly is the Heterosexual agenda?
If gays have one, as is asserted, then hetero folks must have one too.
If this were to pass, the title alone would be the reason. Most people don’t read the fine print.
I think it’s a poke at the “MO Invasion of Mariage” as well as WA’s very loose initiative process.
Brilliant.