A little experiment I'd like to try re: marriage = 1 man 1 woman bumper sticker

[RB TexLa]

I think it would be fun to print a bumper sticker to offer them to put on beside the "one man one woman" that will read "one time, for life."

[MuseRider]

1. Be careful

you might get what you ask for. Just sayin.

I would not be married now if my husband had not been allowed a divorce. God knows they would love to get us all in some kind of covenant marriage.

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. Assuming the Defense of Marriage Initiative gets on the ballot in 2007

(See the link in my sig), the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance already has an initiative in the works for 2008, which would start with the state Supreme Court's recent ruling on marriage and eliminate the possibility of divorce if the couple have children.

[MuseRider]

4. What rock have I been under?

I don't know how I missed all this. Dayum.

Edit for two different sayings mushed together making no sense at all. :banghead:

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. Heh, no worries.

For more info, read the initiative and see post #6 downthread. If you are a Washington resident, I hope we can get your help once all the ducks are lined up. (And even if you aren't... I want to have a PayPal donation link installed in the next week or two, wink, wink.)

[MuseRider]

9. Tell you what.

I will want to be picking your brain for all the info you have about this. When you are done I will contact you. We are trying but you know how difficult it is. Very interesting. If I was in Washington I would absolutely be there but alas, I am in Kansas. Any media I will forward to the Kansas Equality Coalition. Let me know.

I am just sitting here watching "Fabulous! The Story of Queer Cinema" on IFC. Every time I see something like this I realize how far this issue has come. I know it is hard to be patient and you should not have to be patient but we will be successful, all of us together. Great documentary.

[donco6]

5. It'll never happen.

They only pass these things because it makes OTHER people change. They never pass them if THEY actually have to do something.

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. I need to get the FAQ posted to the website, but basically...

To get DOMI on the ballot, we need only to turn in 224,000 valid signatures. To allow for invalid signatures, we have a goal of 280,000, which I am confident we can get.

Once it is on the ballot, we will be gifted with a delicious treat: religious right wing conservatives squawking like chickens trying to firewalk about how this is NOT what they meant when they were spreading the "marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation" meme against equal marriage. I expect that the near certainty of such entertainment will be a big selling point in getting the signatures.

After that, one of two things will happen: the measure will pass, or the measure will fail. Either way, we believe the cause of equal marriage will be moved forward.

If the measure passes, there is no doubt it will be immediately challenged in court. We believe that there is no way the Court can invalidate this initiative without also invalidating their ruling in Andersen. That ruling explicitly declared that marriage existed for the purpose of procreating and raising children, and that the Legislature has a vested state interest in placing any limits on marriage deemed necessary to adhere to that purpose. The Washington State constitution gives the People, in no uncertain terms, full legislative power in the form of the initiative, and there is no way the Court can strip from the people any power recognized as posessed by the Legislature. Either the initiative will fall and Andersen with it, or the initiative will stand and the bigots will be forced to live with the mess they themselves created.

Most likely, though, the initiative will fail and fail miserably. We believe that this is also a good thing, as we have drafted the measure and will be marketing it as a referendum on the Andersen ruling. Every vote against will be counted as a vote against the Court's rejection of equal marriage. If the measure fails, we believe that there will be sufficient grounds to return to the state Supreme Court and refile the matter with the vote being submitted as a state-wide amicus curiae.

And as for why we are not proposing an initiative to create equal marriage (I knew you were waiting to ask) : Polls show that if such an initiative were floated right now, it would fail. That would be a huge backward step for the cause of marriage equality, as it becomes a "precedent of public opinion" against future initiatives and legislation. The failure of our proposed Defense of Marriage Initiative would likewise create a precedent of public opinion in favor of equal marriage, or at least as a rejection of the "marriage exists for procreation only" argument espoused by conservatives.

So whether it passes or fails, we have a winner. Assuming, of course, that we can get it on the ballot in the first place.

[donco6]

8. Clever.

I've thought of this angle (though not as in-depth as this), when my own state had a proposal in the legislature about making divorce more difficult (in order to save marriage we must not only ban gay marriage we must ban divorce). It failed miserably, but generated a lot of press. I found it fascinating, with far RW arguing against making divorce illegal! Ha! The irony was delicious.

[durrrty libby]

2. Government just needs to stay the heck out of

marriage and marriage legislation.