I-957 would require married couples to have kids (WA State)

[Mrs. Overall]

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced an initiative that would put a whole new twist on traditional unions between men and women: It would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriages annulled.

Initiative 957 was filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, which was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage. In that 5-4 ruling, the court found that state lawmakers were justified in passing the 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which restricts marriage to unions between a man and woman.Under I-957, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriages would be subject to annulment.All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized" and people in them would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.

"Absurd? Very," the group says on its Web site, which adds it is planning two more initiatives involving marriage and procreation. "But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions" underlying the Supreme Court's ruling.

More:http://www.komotv.com/news/5566451.html

[illinoisprogressive]

1. We are the loony religious right not in the insane assylums?

[aquart]

2. You might want to re-read.

[Hosnon]

3. I like this idea.

Point out how ridiculous every single argument against gay marriage is and eventually (hopefully) the nation will come around.

[KarenS]

4. I like it too!!

Making fools look ridiculous is the way to go!!

:rofl:

[jgraz]

5. Excellent -- more states should do this.

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. Drats! And I was hoping to be the one to post this (finally!) to LBN

More than a week after sending out press release (see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x47658">here) and nothing. Then somewhere, something hits critical mass and....

It has been a bit of a busy day today. :hi:

[Mrs. Overall]

9. Sorry about that! I just happened to see it this evening on the

komo website, and as I was flipping through local TV stations, Q13 Fox mentioned that they would be covering the story on their 10pm news this evening. I guess the word has gotten out and it's popular!

[TechBear_Seattle]

31. Wow, I made Sean Hannity's blog!

I'm almost flattered. :rofl:

I have posted a reply to Hannity's mutterings. Read it here if you dare.

[buddysmellgood]

7. They need to ban divorce. Why aren't they going on and on about that?

[Virginian]

8. That is one of those selectively banned things.

Remember, all these defense of marriage people are pro Reagan.

[Erika]

12. Divorce is so harmful for children

I'm sure focus on the family will come out against our ability to divorce.

[sam sarrha]

21. married people are now a minority in this country, more people stay 'unMarried', so why should a

minority dictate to me what to do..??

[rucky]

26. And make adultery a crime...

with Old Testament consequences.

[sofa king]

29. Because then Newt Gingrich wouldn't be able to trade 'em in every 8 years.

[Erika]

10. Agreed. Marriage should be for procreation only

and no divorce. Let's get down to the basics.

[heliarc]

15. And no oral or anal sex.

No masturbating, or foreplay either. Bedsheets with holes in them for everyone. Amnesty for those who turn in their sex toys and vibrators.

[Erika]

11. Many fundie religions advocate sex is only for procreation

I wonder what penalty they will warrant on a couple who have no children (Those sexual deviants and perverts) I can hardly wait to see the new laws passed.

[heliarc]

14. No oral sex for them... too bad.

I think Freud even classified kissing a perversion. He deemed some perversions necessary to achieve coitus... crazy bastard.

[sam sarrha]

22. hmmmmm maybe that is why we dont have any children..??

[LiberalFighter]

36. Just keep it in their church

I don't have a problem with them dictating to their members and their members only the requirements of their belief.

Tell their members they can only have sex to procreate. Excommunicate them if they don't.

Tell their members they must have children within so many years. Excommunicate them if they don't.

Tell their members they must have a doctor certify that they can have children. Otherwise don't allow the marriage.


I do think that those who advocate these requirements within their own church should also be required to stone anyone within their church guilty of adultery or any other sex crime. But only those that are their members. So if a member has sex outside the marriage with a non-member only the member would be stoned.

[heliarc]

13. OMG WTF

This post made me use acronyms!!! I'm not so sure this is the way to go. Has it really come to wasting taxpayer time and money with bogus measures... oh well. I guess that's how far these repugs have pushed us.

People who support the Supreme court ruling should be prohibited from having oral sex.

[uppityperson]

16. you might want to reread. Sponsered by libruls supporting gay rights.

Or rather the right of all to marry. WA supreme court recently ruled that the purpose of marriage is to procreate. So, a bunch of people got together, put together this initiative, now are getting signatures, calling out the supreme court. If the people of WA vote this down, this sends the notice to the SC that they were wrong, the purpose of marriage is not just to procreate so open it up to all, regardless of sex.

Or did you mean the repubs have pushed up to getting assinine initiatives on the ballot because of assinine Supreme court rulings?

[heliarc]

18. you might want to reread my post. nt

[uppityperson]

42. Indeed, good morning, did, got it, did, sorry.

reading too fast, dang my eyes and brain.

[keopeli]

17. Woo-hoo! That's my state! Guaranteed: if the Repubs don't debate it (ignore), it will PASS!

If we have a real debate, there will be no choice but to repeal the 98 DOMA. The 5-4 decision based on "procreation" may have been tantamount to planting a judicial bomb.

First, races for Sup. Ct Justices have become much more competitive. The court has taken a shift to the right in the past elections.

Washingtonians are NOT stupid people, whether we live on the East side or the West. We are very grounded. The republicans in WA took over the Initiative process in the early 90s. After the 98 DOMA, the war of Initiatives began to turn.

We told them this would happen. When we learned Microsoft was listening to Ralph Reed, when we failed to address equal rights in the State Legislature, we warned that you were making a mistake.

Now, the Governor is a Democrat (woman), both Senators are Democrats (women), the Legislature is Democratic and we've got great organizations like the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance invested in reversing this backward idiocy that has befallen us these years of late.

Everyone gets the right to live freely as they wish, including YOU.
Everyone respects all of nature, whether the earth, the sky, the sea, or YOU.
Everyone lives free from fear because of liberty and justice for ALL.

Personally, I love this. I love inserting a poison pill into the initiative system.

By the way, as a gay man who has no children, I am totally in favor of passing I-957.

And now, here's a bit from the website --

---

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.

[LiberalFighter]

37. Would they consider vitro fertilization acceptable?

Would they require proof that the couple were the parents of the baby? DNA tests?

[TechBear_Seattle]

52. Same sex couples can have in vitro

Well, if the same sex is female, that is.

Anyway, the question of in vitro fertilization, adoption and children from previous relationships was presented to the Washington Supreme Court by the plaintiffs in Andersen v. King County. The Court rejected the presence of children which involved "third parties", ie anyone other than the natural reproduction of the married couple. If it had not been rejected, the Court would have had to allow same sex couples -- at least those with children -- to get legally married.

Rather than create new case law by introducing mandatory paternaty tests, we have simply added a bit to the existing law dealing with birth certificates. From our initiative:

NEW SECTION. Sec. 11. A new section is added to chapter 70.58 RCW to read as follows:

(1) When a birth certificate is filed pursuant to RCW 70.58.080 which names a mother and father who are married to one another, the registrar shall prepare a certificate of marital procreation. This certificate shall include the names of the mother and father, the date of their marriage, whether their marriage was filed in this state and if so, the county in which the marriage was solemnized, and the date of the child's birth. This certificate shall be forwarded to the state office of vital statistics with the birth certificate pursuant to RCW 70.58.030.

(2) When a certificate of marital procreation is required for births that have occurred outside of this state, the couple shall provide to the state registrar of vital statistics or designated deputy registrar a certified copy of a birth certificate showing the married couple to be the biological parents of a child born after the date of the marriage, along with either proof of the date of their marriage or the sworn affidavit of both husband and wife giving the date of their marriage.

We felt that this approach would be more able to stand up to constitutional scrutiny.

[HockeyMom]

46. Annulment upon Menopause?

Cannot have those "old geezers" having un-procreative sex either.

:rofl:

[TechBear_Seattle]

53. Nope

Once a couple has "fulfilled the purpose of their marriage" and filed proof of such with the state, they are free to remain married for as long as they wish. Unless, that is, our second proposed initiative (next year, perhaps) goes into effect and they still have minor children at home. In that case, they would not be allowed to get a divorce or legal separation until their youngest child has reached the age of majority. (Marriage is, according to the Washington Supreme Court, for the purpose of having and raising children.)

:hi:

[lvx35]

19. We should pass it...Just for shits and grins. nt

[not_a_robot]

20. If only

This could be done in more states. I read about this on that corporatist front called free republic first, of course they all pretended to have no idea why it was being done, except that 'thu gays duh hates us'. I also think it should be one year max.

[NuttyFluffers]

23. crazy hilarious fun!

i love it when people think around problems.

[youngdem]

24. Funny move, but its gonna backfire

We should stick to just simply demanding equal rights for everyone, since we are all Americans, and just shame anyone who opposes it as a bigot and idiot.

All the Right is gonna do is call the Gay Community loony for this and trot out some infertile couples to make themselves feel self-righteous.

Again, silly, and I understand the point, but I think a better move would be to require that married couples file a report when they do or don't have sex, and to maybe annul the marriage if it is too sexless. That to me seems a closer analogy of the intrusion of anti-gay marriage initiatives, anyway.

[raebrek]

25. Backfire?

I would worry about it. If it passed then everyone would be screwed and there more taxes from the couples that could not produce children. Sure it could never happen. How many times has that been said?

Raerek

[Pacifist Patriot]

27. Maybe they should propose legislation that would confer the...

death penalty on adulterers. Now THAT would never pass.

[Jonathan50]

28. I would be happy to put my 28 year marriage on the line

I would be happy to put my 28 year marriage on the line if it meant equal rights for all.

Look at the white Northern kids who came down South during the Civil Rights era, some of them paid with their lives to help blacks achieve equality. Should it be any different for gays?

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
-Thomas Paine

[Casablanca]

54. Excellent sig quote!

Not many people I've met believe it, but Paine is speaking the truth.

[HuffleClaw]

30. funny, but tragic

but of course it gets 'em all sorts of free publicity which was its intention.

[Maeve]

32. Y'know....it used to be that the infertile couldn't marry in some states

But that was considered too draconian and repressive. I rather like the satire of this initiative. :7

Hubby and I waited eight years to start the family...would they re-recognize a marriage if the couple finally produced? :shrug:

[LiberalFighter]

39. Would they consider the marriage okay if the children were born

before (between) the marriage?

Couple marries don't have children. State declares marriage null and void. Couple continues living together and then decide time is right to have children. Would they be allowed to marry again?

Would a couple be allowed to marry a second time after the first was annulled if they don't have any children?

How many times could the same couple marry each other?

[Maeve]

41. Well, if it was annulled, it wasn't a marriage, right?

So white gowns every time! As long as they are proven fertile, why not? :crazy:

You know, this could be a decent fantasy/SF plotline...

[LiberalFighter]

43. So easy to make a mockery of marriage at that point

[trogdor]

33. IVF patients should have to account for all embryos in perpetuity.

What goes around comes around. If we can't use them for stem-cell research, they should be used - all of them. Implant them until the supply is depleted, and if you get preggers four or five times, oh well.

See how they like that.

[mikelgb]

34. Ok I. at first, I was all for this thing, it is a hilarious statement

but of the 3 or 4 threads I've seen on this topic, one of the first responses, and indeed some of the persistent responses were from folks who could not grasp the concept. That worries me. It means some will think it is a great idea just like some who watch Colbert do not realize it is satire

If you really want to prove a point...

Make all couples pass a virginity test before even being granted a marriage license

Virgins can get married only if they have a child within 3 years

the 'Spoiled' ones can only join in Civic Unions

[MissMillie]

35. This is a stroke of genius

I hope it gets some really GREAT press. Is there any way we can help it along?

[redqueen]

38. Beautiful!

:rofl:

[LiberalFighter]

40. Reason or one of the reasons they are floating this initiative

State Supreme Court issued in their opinion the following: "limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the state's interests in procreation and encouraging families with a mother and father and children biologically related to both."

[Norquist Nemesis]

44. Why three years? Give it twelve months and be done with it!

:)

[Thor_MN]

50. Hell, if she can't pee a plus sign within five weeks, it's over.

His junk isn't working with her stuff, rotate amongst the other five weekers and try it again. Either that or appeal to the local magistrate and see if he can knock her up. Good old time tradition.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

45. What the....

don't these people have anything better to do

[Megahurtz]

47. Yeah actually, I think it's Fucking Stupid

and just makes all Liberals look like Idiots.:eyes:
Surely there is a more intelligent way to tackle this problem.

[Lisa]

48. I know a lesbian couple who conceived well within the time limit ...

... via artificial insemination. My parents, on the other hand, didn't have me until 6 years after they were wed!

[superconnected]

49. the less kids you have the more money you have

the people with money will be very against this.

[Trillo]

51. Election results to be Brought by Diebold? n/t

[outofbounds]

55. OK

So I have a child as my wife did from a previous marriage. They both grown and leading their own lives away from our home. So I am to understand in the great state of Wa. My marriage would be annulled since we can't have children due to a hysterectomy? Interesting. So If we decide to divorce we should move to Wa. Where the state will save us the cost of the divorce.
What ever drugs these people are taking I want some. I think it would be fabulous to escape reality to this level. Pink poka dotted mushroom shaped elephants my ass, these hallucinations sound absolutely astounding.