Madness in Washington State?

Update: kmusser says its intentionally over the top and sarcastic, by a pro-gay rights group, in order to raise awareness as to the stupidity of restricting marriage because marriage is "for the benefit of the children" (one of the more popular excuses in the defense of marriage proposals out there).

Living the Scientific Life (Scientist, Interrupted): No Kids? No Marriage!:

things are looking mighty strange in that state [Washington] because of an intitiative that would require all married couples to have kids within three years of saying "I do" or their marriage would be annulled.

Who filed this initiative? Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance (WA-DoMA), that's who. That group was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage. Why did they file this initiative? Because they are trying to prove the fundamentalists' point that all marriages are simply for the purpose of procreation, nothing more (apparently).

"For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation ... The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine," said WA-DOMA organizer Gregory Gadow in a printed statement. "If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage."

If passed by Washington voters, the Defense of Marriage Initiative would:

1. add the phrase, "who are capable of having children with one another" to the legal definition of marriage;

2. require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;

3. require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as "unrecognized;"

4. establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and

5. make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits.

Brilliant, no? Ends Gay Marriage AND it ends the marriages of thousands of elderly couples, long past the age of procreation, straight couples who want nothing more than to be together as long as time lets them. It also targets divorcees, as most couples from split marriages already have their kids and don't want anymore. It also targets widows, since again, couples who inherited a kid from a previous marriage tend to not want to add to the family, depending on age and personal stress levels through the original spouses deaths.

In short, if you're marriage ain't "normal" (and less than 20% are, these days), then it's not a marriage and you can just go fuck off according to these people.

*sigh*

Anybody out there want to tell it to my face that faireraven and I, or keltique and3ravensringo , or any number of couples in our various circles really don't deserve to be married?

That's right, WA-DoMA: come say it to our faces.

Poe's law strikes again: "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."

what the hell?

Military: No Gitmo guard abuse evident - Yahoo! News:

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - An Army officer who investigated possible abuse at Guantanamo Bay after some guards purportedly bragged about beating detainees found no evidence they mistreated the prisoners — although he did not interview any of the alleged victims, the U.S. military said Wednesday.

This is what happens to career officers when you tell them they have no career if they suggest the President is wrong.

Saying "you're always right" is not a sign of discipline.  Its a sign of cowardess and weakness and its what gets people *killed* for no reasonable reason.

Clinton didn't gut our military.  The military Clinton left to Bush was perfectly willing to call bullshit when they saw it, while still being perfectly able to achieve strategic victories when it mattered.

The military Bush is leaving to his successor won't have an independent thought to save their ass.

"not listening!"

New York may ban iPods while crossing street - Yahoo! News:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - New Yorkers who blithely cross the street listening to an iPod or talking on a cell phone could soon face a $100 fine.

New York State Sen. Carl Kruger says three pedestrians in his Brooklyn district have been killed since September upon stepping into traffic while distracted by an electronic device. In one case bystanders screamed "watch out" to no avail.

Kruger says he will introduce legislation on Wednesday to ban the use of gadgets such as Blackberry devices and video games while crossing the street.

"Government has an obligation to protect its citizenry," Kruger said in a telephone interview from Albany, the state capital. "This electronic gadgetry is reaching the point where it's becoming not only endemic but it's creating an atmosphere where we have a major public safety crisis at hand."

I note he didn't say, "Government has an obligation to protect its citizenry from themselves." To have actually been honest about it would have shown that he doesn't take personal freedom as seriously as an elected official should.

Of course, if someone actually ran the stats and looked up the number of "walkman" pedestrian deaths over the last 25 years compared to the population as a whole, you'd probably find that just like deafness, the numbers are unchanged.  Stupid is, and trying to ban something like this isn't going to stop stupid.

Update: The /.'ers bring up a valid point.

• If the person was jaywalking when they were hit, then its their own fault anyways and they're already violating the law.
  
  but...
  
  
• If the person had the legal right of way when they were hit, then it wasn't their fault and the fact that they had the ipod on doesn't change the fact that they were hit by a vehicle that didn't give way.