(no subject)

[theweaselking]

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance seeks to defend equal marriage in this state by challenging the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling on Andersen v. King County. This decision, given in July 2006, declared that a “legitimate state interest” allows the Legislature to limit marriage to those couples able to have and raise children together. Because of this “legitimate state interest,” it is permissible to bar same-sex couples from legal marriage.

The way we are challenging Andersen is unusual: using the initiative, we are working to put the Court’s ruling into law. We will do this through three initiatives. The first would make procreation a requirement for legal marriage. The second would prohibit divorce or legal separation when there are children. The third would make the act of having a child together the legal equivalent of a marriage ceremony.

Absurd? Very. But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions which make up the Andersen ruling. By getting the initiatives passed, we hope the Supreme Court will strike them down as unconstitional and thus weaken Andersen itself. And at the very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric.

Comments

[itlandm.livejournal.com]

Awesome idea. Hiding behind procreation is hypocricy. If you want to prohibit gay or lesbian marriage, why not just say right out that it is because it is icky? Instead of lying, I mean.

[city-of-dis.livejournal.com]

I considered suggesting this to the Marriage Now people when Nick and I were working with them, but ultimately, I worry that the psycho Christians will latch on to it and we'll end up stripping otherwise supportive heteros of their rights, too. I'd hate to do that, or give the freakfundies any ideas...

[opaqueplanet.livejournal.com]

I see what they're trying to do... but there's too much possibility that this could backfire horribly and keep infertile people from marrying, "marry" rape victims to their rapist if conception results, etc. I have actually seen people trying to suggest the latter is the case "in God's eyes". I believe you were the one who linked to "Fundies Say the Darnedest Things"?

[rimrunner.livejournal.com]

If by some bizarre chance it should pass, the courts'll strike it on constitutional grounds.

Personally, I'm glad to see a bit of absurdity in what passes for politics in this state. (Well, there was Tim Eyman, but he's a fucking asshole who's only funny in a "holy hell, he canNOT be serious" sort of way.)

[siouxsyn.livejournal.com]

Does "The Snip" constitute divorce proceedings?

And women can only marry within their childbearing years. Grandma has to die lonely. But your 12yr old daughter may well be fair game. Especially if she's knocked up.

And then there's having to perform one's "wifely duty". Back to the good old days where she gets up the duff or you throw her back for a good one that's not barren. But in the modern world that goes for guys too. Shooting blanks means goodbye wifey.

Have fun sorting this!

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

In agree entirely. One of the eteranl arguments the anti-gay crowd use to stop gay marriage is that gay people don't breed (entirely ignoring the fact that, yes, we do actually).

Fine, if marriage is all about breeding and the little kiddies then MAKE it about the kiddies.