The bill then requires “intended parents” to be married to each other and specifically says an unmarried person may not be an intended parent
( Read more... )
A description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents is also required, including individual participation in faith-based or church activities.
When did the Taliban took over indiana? I checked the date on the article two times, it really read 2005, not 1905 -_-;
I'm not really surprised it's Indiana. They just mark that state red before even counting the votes and it has more Klan members than in most Southern states.
Can we secede? Really? I mean, as long as the neocons and their fellow-travellers seem intent on bringing about The Handmaid's Tale, we might as well cooperate so we can be rid of the lot that much sooner. If they're all in one place, it's easier to mournfully set off the neutron bomb or... something.
I'm vaguely uneasy with blaming it on neocons. I suppose it's because people everywhere, men and women, regardless of where they are or live, are not standing up and saying, in whatever polite tone of voice, excuse me, are you nucking futs?
Because -- and I realise I'm going to come off as extremely naive here -- I still believe that regardless of politics, there is no excuse to go backwards in this country, in terms of people's rights and the right of pursuit of happiness (which IS in the Constitution, unlike that whole Pledge under God).
Backwards. That is where this piece of legislation seems to be steering.
...that sought to make marriage a requirement for motherhood (including specific criminal penalties for unmarried women who do become pregnant “by means other than sexual intercourse”) has been dropped by its legislative sponsor. (bolding mine)
Comments 6
When did the Taliban took over indiana? I checked the date on the article two times, it really read 2005, not 1905 -_-;
Reply
*cough*PatRobertson*cough*
Reply
Reply
[/flail]
Reply
Because -- and I realise I'm going to come off as extremely naive here -- I still believe that regardless of politics, there is no excuse to go backwards in this country, in terms of people's rights and the right of pursuit of happiness (which IS in the Constitution, unlike that whole Pledge under God).
Backwards. That is where this piece of legislation seems to be steering.
Reply
Just found this:http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/06/the-indiana-bill/
...that sought to make marriage a requirement for motherhood (including specific criminal penalties for unmarried women who do become pregnant “by means other than sexual intercourse”) has been dropped by its legislative sponsor.
(bolding mine)
Reply
Leave a comment