ximeria | Good morning and whoa!

WOW. That's horrific. There's no way it'll pass. Jeez. If it does, I'm moving to Canada.

Read the fine lines, it's only Washington state.

Even though it was meant to ridicule the opposition, I think one should be careful to joke like that -- I mean, look at some of the other state-laws in the US. I swear, there's a state where it's not legal to have sex with a fish...

I find it scary that anyone found it necessarry to make such a law XD

Yep, the State Supreme court decided that marriages can only be made for the procreation of children. So, post-menopausal women, men who've had vasectomies, women who've had their tubes tied, or are just infertile, or plain don't want kids, can't marry here.

I'm glad they've decided to challenge the ruling! It's stupid, stupid, stupid.

"We were told not to have kids... I am a hemophiliac and my wife has aids!"
"Either you have a doomed baby or your marriage in annuled!"

That's pretty much what the current ruling states. *headdesk*

I figure it WAS just to point out how ridiculous it was, but seriously, I wouldn't dare joking about it. I mean, look at some of the exisiting state laws! I swear, some of the people to suggested AND voted for them must've have been on some seriously good stuff LOL

It's actually a Gay Marriage proponents who brought up the measure, and according to the thing on FOXNews I saw they are even "calling it absurd. But they maintain it makes a point, namely, exposing the hypocrisy of those who say the sole purpose of marriage is to procreate."

Here's a link for the story. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250958,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250958,00.html)

There's a link for the actual video on the left under the Related tabthingie that is better than the transcript.

*clamps hand over mouth to prevent ranting about dumbass things in this country.* *sporks stupid government*

Considering existing laws in the States, I'm not sure I'd dare put something like this forward even to ridicule the opposition. I mean, it might give the wrong people the wrong ideas O.o - I don't trust American politicians anymore than European ones LOL

I dont think this is meant as a serious attempt to get the law passed - just someone making a point that if the reason that gay couples shouldnt be allowed to get married is becuase they cant produce children, then the law shoud read the same for ANY people who cant have kids. It's supposed to make politicians see how rediculous their reasons are for being against gay marriage.

First, that's only Washington state, not the entire United States, and second that's incredibly retarded. There's enough hippies in Seattle that would never ever let that pass. Plus it discriminates against people who can't have kids, don't want kids or should not have kids (due to disease). It is pretty much a law that is against federal law, so it's just dumb.
It's really only being brought up to prove a point, an "Aha" from same-sex couples, even though I believe that most same-sex couples wouldn't support it in the end.
(in the us, some people run for president, not to win, but to prove a point, get a party on the ballot or get their voice heard. this seems like the same strategy.)

I'm fairly certain the point isn't to get it passed or even to get real support, because even the people putting it forward know that it won't get passed. It's just being done to point out how ludicrous it is to argue against same-sex marriages because they can't procreate.

It's a ridiculous law, yes, but the point it's making is that arguments against same-sex marriage--in this case--are equally ridiculous.

That's almost exactly what I said :]

Sorry. It didn't really read that way when I first read it. Maybe I'm just not awake enough yet.

I'd still be careful even coming up with something like this, no matter for what reason. Considering existing laws, I could imagine someone seriously considering this.

It's not without reason one of our morning radio shows has an 'American Laws' quiz. They give us three laws, one of which is made up. We're rarely capable of telling which one IS the made up one, because one is more insane than the other. I know most of them aren't used anymore, but they're still there

Laws in the United States are harder to pass perhaps, than what you are used to. It doesn't usually involve citizens voting for them, it usually involves a state senate or state supreme court ruling (for state laws, as long as they do not violate a federal law or federal supreme court ruling) and even then a governor can veto these things (as the president can in senate rulings). Usually the citizens only vote to bring up a law topic discussion or to vote on tax laws. A lot of OLD laws on the books, ones that are mostly ignored (no cows on the green on sundays for example), were created back in the 1700-1800's when there was a single ruling judge or a group of five town/city selectmen voting on them. And most of them are null and void now that there have been federal laws created that supercede them, so even though they are in law books for certain states, they are invalid, which is probably why they haven't been removed from lawbooks, people are lazy.

The thing you have to remember here, is that the United States is a body of fifty states. As there are federal laws that all have to follow, there's still a lot of state laws that are vastly different. This is why I wouldn't never move to Texas, Utah, Idaho, or any of those ones in the middle. It's north east coast or west coast for me.

And no, people are not going to take this seriously, as even those that brought it fourth said that it is only to prove a point. It is no different than the flying spaghetti monster. Washington state, especially the area around seattle, is really progressive and liberal (as well as comprised of a large foreign population), which means the people tend to think before they vote rather than just go by what their party tells them to do.

HA! And if it does get passed, people will just live in sin for years and years until they are actually ready to have kids. :)

Just kidding. I think it's hilarious. A lot of laws proposed recently seem to be telling us what we have to do or what we should believe and I'm laughing my ass off at them, because many won't pass.

Well, hopefully no one will ever get the idea to actually put forward a law like this, even less vote for it XD

It's silly, and it'll never even get closed to being passed. It's just same-sex advocates trying to point out that if the point of marriage is having children, well then all married couples should have kids. It's a pretty ridiculous way of trying to get your point across, but at the end of the day it's just someone trying to make a statement.

Maybe that's what surprised me. Around here you'd probably get your ass thrown out if you suggested something like this, or at least a reprimand. It'd be a waste of time and considered poor behaviour.

Wow, that *is* interesting. But, you know us Americans, always willing to look like an ass if that's what it takes to get our point across.

And the weird thing is most people read the story, rolled their eyes and went about their day :-/

So... my grandfather's second marriage of fifteen years after my grandmother died would be annuled?

Seriously, great thinking there!

Heh, well, never claimed that was an intelligent idea LOL - yeah -- kinda brainless.

Well, I can't blame Xim for misunderstanding it. It took me af few read-throughs before I was sure that it was actually the opposite.

I'd still be careful about using this as a statement to show how stupid it is. I've seen insaner state laws in the US. Although, one can hope everyone finds it absurd.

Well, if it does get passed, they are a lot stupider than I thought.

The US never stop to amaze me with their weirdness O_o

Same here. I mean, just look at Illinois

* In Chicago, it is illegal to fish in one's pajamas.

* In Chicago, it is illegal to take a French poodle to the opera.

* According to state law, it is illegal to speak English. The officially recognized language is "American".

I'd be careful about ANY type of law, even one made as a statement.

Hey now, just because you can't fish in your PJs, doesn't mean you should hate on Chicago. That city is so awesome, and it's the only liberal place to be in Illinois, I mean seriously, that entire state is one huge farm.

I think you'd like chicago ^_^

I have nothing against any specific place. The fact that the suggested law in my first post annoyed me was that I found it ridiculous, even as a statement. Look, no, I'll probably never GET the American system, mostly because a. politics bore me. b. We haven't had a similiar system for about a century or so.

Hell, Danish politics bore the crap out of me, even though I probably should be interested. Nor do we vote, as a people, on everything, only issues that are deemed too heavy for the government to decide on its own -- mostly if they're laws that would mean changing the 'constitution'.

lol..I especially love the first one ^^;

I'd be careful about ANY type of law, even one made as a statement
*nod nod*

Good morning and whoa!

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject