I grew up in the state of Washington, and always thought that the west side of the state was politically liberal, however, things are looking mighty strange in that state 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 automatically 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:
- add the phrase, "who are capable of having children with one another" to the legal definition of marriage;
- require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;
- 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;"
- establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and
- make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits.
If I was still living in Seattle, I'd be working on this initiative, too.
Cited story.
.
- Log in to post comments
read the fine print at the website: http://www.wa-doma.org/
Its actually, well not quite a joke, but an intentional attempt by a pro-gay rights group to turn the rhetoric of "defense of marriage" acts against the right-wing nutcases that are pushing them.
Either by proposing restrictions against marriage to an extreme, or worse still, getting them actually passed and forcing the courts to get involved, they hope to have either the courts or the populace see the errors in judgement and overturn Andersen.
I'm really appreciating the humor in this and hope that enough people get it to make a good showing on the ballot. Hope it's successful at showing the fallacy of the 'marriage is for having children' argument. So far I'm seeing waaay too many people who aren't realizing the purpose. I live in Washington, btw, on a small island near Seattle.
I would worry that people wouldn't realize it's a joke and that it would actually end up becoming law. Constitutionally questionable law, but law nonetheless.
Sanjiv - that's kinda the point. Get it into law, then force the courts to address it and get the courts putting the Andersen decision back for review under a clearer light.
Failing that, get the people to recognize the prejudice behind Andersen and incite them to amend their constitution to overturn the court.
This is about the best way you can "work within the system" to change it. When your opposition puts forth ridiculous statements, instead of just denouncing them....embrace them. Force them to stand by the ridiculous statement all the way out on the limb. They've given you the rope - all you gotta do is hang 'em. If they say marriage should be between one man and one woman because that's how procreation happens, fine. But simply making that statement doesn't resonate the ridiculousness of it. Only by making the statement real will show people how absurd it all is.
Oh, and since sex and children outside of marriage is a sin and bad family values, I also propose that any person who has gotten pregnant out of wedlock can never get married. They indulged in hedonism and have condemned their child to a life of immoral role models. So no sacred marriage for them either. What they've done is unnatural.
The more ridiculous but still in line with their ridiculous statements, the better.
Actually, Kevin, children out of wedlock, just like children of divorcees and children whose with a parent who has died are all affected by this supposed "pro-family" definition of marriage.
Many divorcees who remarry tend to not marry with the intent of having new children. This proposal would mean that their marriages, which would be for the better interests of the present children (once they get past the "i hate my stepmonster" phase), would actually be null and void. Its meant to show how only the "perfect" marriage / nuclear family is valid, even as such a family is so much in the minority these days.
This is definitely among the stupidest things I have ever heard of. If you don't want gay people to marry, think up a real reason. Whether or not people can or choose to have children is not the goverment's business. It is a religious opinion. Why on Earth or anywhere else in the universe would I want some people's religious beliefs to define my marriage or anyone elses?
What if you try to have kids and are unsuccessful? Should the government require a couple to prove they attempted fertilization techniques? How far should that go? I assume the government would then foot the bill 100% since it would be an enforced requirement for people to be married. Should a couple be required to prove they did not use safe sex or contraceptives - I mean, why try to block having children with a condom? Will the government pay for that? Will the government pay for all of the kids that are born to parents who only had them because they wanted to be married?
What an amazing crock. And we pay them for this.
Chardyspal
They're only doing this for the money: think of the profits they could make be re-selling the proofs of procreation.
We know politicians are corrupt and venal, so they might as well act like it.
Bob
Chardyspal, I think you missed the point here. The group proposing this law is actually a pro-gay marriage group. They're filing it to point out the absurdity of current marriage laws, and the absurdity of some of the reasons given to keep gay marriage illegal.
heh... very cute. We'll have to see if it has legs, but the Swift Effect could make this an interesting business!
Washington is one of those states where the people can write initiatives to put on the ballot, provided that they get enough signatures. this leads to all sorts of interesting initiatives on the ballot, and these sometimes-oddball initiatives often motivate people to go out and vote. this is one of the many things i truly love about washington state.
in this case, this initiative was written by a pro-gay group who is trying to get people to realize the absurdities of the "defense of marriage" gang, namely, if marriage is only for the purpose of procreation, well, married people had better get on with it and make some babies! according to this initiative (well, if it is voted into law, which is doubtful) if you can't have babies, your marriage is then annulled by the state after three years, regardless of the fact that you are heterosexual because, well, everyone knows that marriage is ALL ABOUT PROCREATION, and nothing else.
i wonder how this initiative applies to adoption?
anyway, like i said, i wish i was still in wash state, working on this initiative. i am sure that the vast majority of the PEOPLE in the state realize the humor of this situation, but possibly, fewer than half of the POLITICIANS do (they have to pass an anti-humor test before being deemed qualified for public office).
I do get it...the scary thing is that if it gets onto a ballot it could theoretically possibly actually pass...thus my rant.
If one wants to point out the iniquities of a law one should not propose something (such as an initiative) that could backfire and limit other people who have the thing one is trying to obtain. I would hate to chance losing my rights because someone is trying to make a point, however valid it may be. And I don't want to spend any time at all defending or debating my own rights discussing an initiative being made to make a point, when the real issue, from a legal point of view, boils down to ensuring equal rights for all.
Gay couple wants to get married. Frightened (or whatever) people say no, you can't get married....(uh)... because you can't have children! (yeah, that's the ticket!). Instead of saying "that's not a valid, equitable reason, lots of married straight couples do not have children - by accident or design, think up an equitable reason, if you can"...instead they say - "let's make up an initiative that will say people can only be married if they have children - everyone will see how silly that is"...and it goes to "the voters"...and now, what if that passes?
What if the idea is picked up in this state or that state and if you get married in state X you don't have to worry about your child deadline but if you get married in Y state, you do?
What about older people, past child bearing age, who want to get married?
What about if a person can't have children...are they doomed to "just live together" and not have a legal relationship?
Now, I am not the brightest tool in the shed, as I am sure you can all tell, and I am not experienced at expressing myself on blogs or forums such as these, so I am sure I am being very clumsy, but my Granddad and Dad taught me that you have to try to think about what kind of a precident a law (or initiative) could set - how it could be used and abused - because the best intentioned plan can and will be used and abused in the most unintentioned way.
Please do not yell at me. I will now shut up and go away.
Chardyspal
very funny.in life now there are so many laws that are not proper and if this is passed into law it wont be the first .but what i know is that a heterosexual cupple can have kids and if they cant its cos of a medival problem which can be fixed or cant be fixed.gay people cant have kids.wont have kids of their own.the premise of marriage is based on a man and a woman so even if they cant have kids it does not make it less than marraige. gay people should get together and ca;ll it another name not marriage.,
These kinds of demonstrations usually have someone in place who can withdraw the legislation at the last moment.