Gay Rights Activists Introduce Initiative that Would Require Children in Marriages (Washington)

[jefferson_dem]

Gay Rights Activists Introduce Initiative that Would Require Children in Marriages

KENNEWICK, Wash.- A new initiative is turning heads around the state as the gay-marriage debate heats up again.

Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed has accepted Iinitiative 957, a response by gay rights activists to a State Supreme Court ruling last summer.

The Washington Supreme Court ruled that the state could prevent gay and lesbian couples from marrying because the state has a legitimate interest in preserving marriage for procreation.

In response, the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance filed the Initiative.

I-957 has five clauses that would have to be met for a legal marriage.

It would allow only couples capable of having kids to marry, and that they file "proof of procreation" within three years of the marriage. If not, the marriage would be annulled.

<SNIP>

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16933796/

[originalpckelly]

1. AHAHAHAHA!

More power to them! And you know what? What if a married couple know they are sterile and still have sex? Is that a sin?

It's not sex for procreation, now is it?

[HappyWeasel]

116. I'm sure some methhead can find biblical precedent showing that sterile people are not to be married

They find precedent for fudging on your taxes...they find precedents for being greedy...some even find precedents for racism. Why not this? Even I have found a precedent that states that castration is a form of godly devotion. Exodus says that abortion is ok (if you believe that there is a green light to abortion when there is only a tort arising from causing malicious miscarriage). Isiah says it isn't (if you believe that being foreseen to live and living are the same) It just depends on what you want to hear.

[grace0418]

140. At my pre-cana crap before my wedding (did the Catholic wedding for my family)

the priest actually asked me to swear that both of us were able to have children. I asked him why and he replied that he couldn't marry us otherwise because the purpose of being married was to procreate. Then I said "Well, if I'm supposed to be a virgin before my wedding night, how the heck should I know whether or not I can have children, much less my husband?"

That shut him up pretty good.

[peacebird]

2. LOVE IT!!!!!

A thing of beauty!

[originalpckelly]

4. Indeed...

people need to start calling the bluffs of all the ignorant bastards in our country. This bullshit is ridiculous and needs to stop! :woohoo: This is going to be interesting.

Can't wait to see a couple freeper heads explode.

[Reterr]

3. K&R

Good for them! :bounce:

[darkstar7646]

5. A reasoned argument...

... but I'd go further...

If we're going to ban marriages on moral/religious grounds, then there should be no marriage which is not pre-sanctioned by the state. You'd have to pass an evaluation process by the state (not unlike a driver's test or the like) which basically forces you to open up to the state.

And you only get one shot.

I mean, if the state has an interest in banning certain marriages on the basis of who's involved, then that state interest applies to a lot more than just gay-straight.

[Heywood J]

109. If you felt like it, you could

ask them to include a clause which says that you MUST reproduce every three years, or your marriage will be annulled. I mean, if it's for the purpose of procreation...

[zanne]

6. And the Pope would love it! nt

[nam78_two]

7. Off to GP with a K&R.nt

[Ian David]

8. YES!!! You know, Catholics aren't allowed to marry unless they can procreate.

We should call this "The de Brito Act."

See:

Forbidden Wedding
Running time: 56 min. 2001
Directed by Flavia Fontes



(Brazil) World Premiere,
Magaret Mead Film Festival

Synopsis and Director's Statement

Forbidden Wedding is the story of a man who is forbidden to get married by the Catholic Church in Brazil because he is sexually impotent. My passion is to produce films that tell deceptively small stories that have significance well beyond the frame of the camera. These stories are sometimes tragic, other times funny, and are often seen through the eyes of ordinary people in unusual circumstances. The documentary explores the relationship between an institution and its people, and the triumph of the human heart.

Hedir Antonio de Brito, a paraplegic from the age of 15, wants simply to marry Mara. They were preparing for the wedding; invitations had been mailed, and their marriage certificate applied for from the Roman Catholic Church. Then the shocking letter arrived from the local bishop denying their application. According to the Vatican¹s Canonic Law 1084, a man must be able to copulate in order to get married.

When I first read of the story in a small Brazilian newspaper in New York, I was shocked. Didn¹t the Church have more important things to do? Why were priests so concerned with peoples' sex lives? I had to capture this story. I found out that Hedir lived in a small town in southeast Brazil and within
a few days I was on a courier flight to document his story. With my digital video camera in hand, I talked to the couple, their families, the townspeople, and the local priests. Many of them were afraid to speak their minds in the shadow of the Catholic Church, but speak they eventually did. Told entirely through their voices, the film unfolds into a gentle love story about human sexuality, the rights of the disabled, and faith in Brazil.

This video is available for rental $75 and sale $295 and also public screenings. Director is also available to discuss the film in public screenings. Check should be made to Means of Productions and mailed to address below.

Flavia Fontes
Means of Productions
209 East 81st Street, #5D
New York, NY 1
AWARDS
"Audience Award For Best Documentary" - Projections International Film Festival
"Honorable Mention" - Philadelphia International Film Festival
"Award Of Excellence" - Brasa Film Festival

More:
http://home.earthlink.net/~ffontes/wedding.htm

[MuseRider]

9. Send them money!

Here is the website where you can download a donation form. http://www.wa-doma.org/

TechBear_Seattle has been posting about this in the GLBT forum.

I think it is hysterical and a wonderful way to make the Talibornagain eat their words.

[Reterr]

11. Thanks for posting that link-I will donate/NT

[MuseRider]

13. YAY!

Thank you!

I have my donation form sitting here waiting for me to return to civilization so I can mail it in.

IMO this is one of the most creative ways to deal with an issue and it really puts the onus on the other side. Whoever thought of this is brilliant.

[krispos42]

360. (spew gordita on my plate) "Talibornagain"!!!!

OMFG that's priceless! 344 brownie points for you!

[MuseRider]

394. Not mine but thanks!

I learned it here, I have no idea who came up with it first but I think it is perfect for some.

Sorry about the gordita :(

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ian David]

12. Contact your congress-critters, and ask them to introduce it in YOUR state. n/t

[MuseRider]

14. Kick

back up to the top of GD before I leave. :hi:

[derby378]

15. So, marrying a woman who was infertile or who had ovarian cancer would be illegal?

Can someone please enlighten me here?

[ulysses]

16. I think the point is to highlight the hypocrisy.

As someone who is infertile because of cancer treatments myself, I think it's excellent. :)

[Nikki Stone1]

30. Backing political representatives into corners can have unintended effects.

Yeah, I'm repeating it. I just wish people would listen.

[MattSh]

108. Hypocrisy? Yes, but still a stunt.

I don't like it when legislators pass stunt legislation, and I hate stunt initiatives too.

Two wrongs don't make a right, or has that changed??

And since the state tells them they must have children, the state (and taxpayers) pick up the bill, yes?

Anyone who thinks this is a good idea should state publicly they are ready to foot the bill.

[mondo joe]

121. Applying a dumb law to everyone IS equality.

But it's not going to happen anyway.

[krispos42]

361. No, because they are not being forced to be together

Or forced to be married. In fact, if you don't breed children, you are no longer legally married, and it all just goes away.

If the law starts saying that only married people can have sex, well, that's a different story.

I wonder what will happen if they decided that adultery is a threat to the family unit and punishable by prison?

[orleans]

421. then what would your solution to the problem be? n/t

[mondo joe]

17. We were told by the state that marriage exists for procreation. So let's see

how it holds up.

[Lex]

37. It get interesting real quick.

Gotta love it. :thumbsup:

[Catfight]

79. You're missing the point! They are exposing the ludicrousness of the

idea that marriage is solely for the purpose of procreation! So if it is solely to procreate, and that's the bases to discriminate against gay people marrying, then YES, if you can produce a damn kid in your marriage, then you shouldn't be able to be married by their insane logic.

by the way, lesbians are infertile and have ovarian cancer too.

[maggiegault]

118. And A Whole Lot Of Childfree People...

...that is, heterosexual adults who marry yet do not WANT to have children, can get badly hurt in the process.

I absolutely think that gay people should be permitted to marry and have the exact same rights as straight people.

I resent like hell, as a childfree married woman, that fundie freaks equate "marriage" with "children."

However, I had a tubal ligation last year, and that was by choice, and it was to eliminate any further possibility of getting pregnant. That was with the sanctioning and full support of my husband.

So where would that leave us? Without rights as married people? Annulled marriages, compliments of people proving a point? Isn't that just discrimination against a different group of people?

[mondo joe]

120. It's not discrimination if applied uniformly.

And that's what shows what a failure the state court's decision was.

[Catfight]

409. I think str8 people that don't marry until gay people have the same right

are noble. It's sort of like refusing to eat at a restaurant, even though it's one of your favorites, because it refuses to hire gay people. So if no one got married and just lived together, then maybe things would change. So by your logic, as long as you have your rights as a str8 married couple, then to hell with all the folks that can't because of some discriminatory law. Even the possibility of you imagining discrimination on your part upsets you, well, try living with it every day. Try imagining that you fell in love with the same sex, decided to leave your husband, and your partner can't even see you in the hospital let alone support you through mutual benefits? Your rights aren't jeopardized at all, try imagining not having them in the first place.

I resent like hell that str8 people can get married and have benefits I cannot. Period.

[orleans]

422. it would leave the state in a position to say "no, we just really

don't want gay couples to marry" and be HONEST about their intent ot the ruling instead of this bullshit they are saying now--that marriage is only for procreation.

and perhaps--it would encourage the state to CHANGE THE LAW and allow gay couples to legally marry.

this is not to take away your rights--it is to give others the rights you already have.

[AnOhioan]

18. Touche,,,,I love it when rw logic is thrown back at them

[LostinVA]

19. Brilliant

[Nikki Stone1]

20. Actually, stupid, and against family planning. It hurts responsible people.

Suppose you marry at 25 and want to wait until you are financially able to support kids to have them? Suppose it takes you 5 or 10 years? You should stop using birth control, have kids right away, and raise them in tough financial conditions or lose your marriage license?

That is ludicrous.

I am thoroughly in support of gay marriage and in favor of gays having children. I am not in support of punishing responsible people.

Chances are, this law would not be too much of a problem for the no-birth-control religious who WILL reproduce in 3 years.

[keepCAblue]

21. "I am not in support of punishing responsible people."

Plenty of gays and lesbians are highly responsible people. Why should they be singled out for punishment?

[Nikki Stone1]

25. Then fight for rights responsibly, and don't hurt people who are more likely to support your cause

Straights who use birth control and plan their families--or who don't reproduce for any number of reasons--are more likely to support gay rights than eager-to-breed fundies. The proposed law hurts people who actually are more likely to support the cause of gay marriage. Why antagonize them? It makes no political sense and it might actually lose support for the cause.

[mondo joe]

38. Here's the thing: the initiative is unlikely to pass, and if it does it will be overturned,

which will demonstrate that the anti gay decision was bogus.

[Nikki Stone1]

48. That is your belief. That is not a certainty.

If this were 20 or 30 years ago, I might agree with you. WIth the money and clout the fundies currently enjoy, I have to disagree with you here. I simply don't know if it will pass or not. I don't believe that risk should be taken. We live in a time when absurd political decisions are being made.

[electron_blue]

69. I'm willing to take this risk

If this passed, the backlash would be tremendous and worth it.

eta: this hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of passing. It's all to make a point - to force *them* to admit that children are not the reason they're against gay marriage. They're standing behind this facade.

[Nikki Stone1]

76. I am not willing to take this risk for other people

I admire people who take risks for themselves. But there is no honor in risking other people in a volatile political climate.

[Burnsey_Koenig]

106. Well good for you Nikki Stone1

That you are unwilling to take the risk for other people.

Other people took the "risk" against my rights, and those people should be forced to live within the same boxed in society of laws that they have forced me and my partner to live in. If they wish to limit my rights, why shouldn't we limit everyones rights to the same degree? If eveeryone is treated equally, then we gays won't be able to complain, because then and only then would the law apply equally to everyone.

I think this law doesn't go far enough. Straight people should be limited to one marriage, if it goes bust then they shouldn't have the right to marry again. After all they keep saying it should be between one man and one woman. So be, heterosexuals should be given one chance and one chance only. It's one more chance than I get, so why should one group get more "rights" than another.

The thing about equal rights is if they are not equal they are not rights, they are privliges.

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[keepCAblue]

132. She obviously hasn't been to their website

NikkiStone's response is purely a knee-jerk reaction, one which screams "UNFAIR!" without bothering to learn more about the intent of the legislation or the group behind it.

If nothing else, perhaps this legislation will force narrow-thinking straights like Ms. Stone to walk in my shoes, if even for a scant moment. Unfair? Punishing responsible people? Unconstitutional? You betch yer wadded-up panties, Ms. Stone. Welcome to my world and the "stupid" and "ludicrous" laws which you heterosexuals have created and enacted. Doesn't feel so good standing on my side of the fence, does it? Well, good. Too bloody bad for you and your fellow hets. Maybe being forced to view the world from my side of the fence, forced to walk for miles and miles on end with no end in sight in my old gay shoes will open your eyes and your mind. Only then will you and your ruling class--including those of you who are quick to spout how you're "thoroughly in support of gay marriage" (so long as giving said support doesn't in any way inconvenience your privileged way of life)--only then, when this old gay shoe is uncomfortably on the other foot, will you straights question the constitutionality of the current laws and the Andersen ruling.

Empathy, Ms. Stone. Lace up these old weathered boots of discrimination and try 'em on for size. And then when your bruised, battered and bloody feet hurt so bone-weary bad that you think you can't walk another mile--another step--then and only then can you lecture me on how I should "fight for rights responsibly." Sexual minorities HAVE fought responsibly and will continue to do so, in spite of the mean, vicious and highly IRRESPONSIBLE laws and actions which, for centuries, your *people* have slapped on us--like handcuffs--to keep us oppressed and marginalized.

When Dr. Martin Luther King sat in Birmingham jail, he wrote a letter to the white religious leaders who lectured him about fighting "responsibly," about not "hurting" the very people who would deign to support his cause -- much as you, in your reply post, Ms. Stone, have lectured me and, hence, all sexual minorities who struggle for equality. Here is Dr. King's reply to his critics, and mine, to you:

You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling, for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation.

The WA-DOMA website, in effect, echoes Dr. King's words. Read it.

http://www.wa-doma.org/

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.

[Nikki Stone1]

281. You seem to see this law as a way to vent your righteous anger

To say to the straight community, "If we can't get married, then you can't either. Fuck y'all!" ? The problem is that people that will be "fucked" by this law are not the Christofacists (who would benefit by seeing their world view validated), but the more liberal family planners and birth control users, zero population types, the disabled, etc. and many of these people are liberal and support gay marriage.

You need to be careful when you get that angry--you can make decisions in rage that actually hurt the wrong people. That is mostly what bothers me about this potential law. You are risking decent folks, most of whom would support you, for a law that could further empower the Christofacists. Think about it.

And if you need more food for thought, think about a red state that wants to do an end run around the gay marriage issue. A law like this could, in fact, be used to bolster the claim that gay marriage is not a discrimination issue, but an issue of human reproduction. I could see a red state passing a law like this (grandfathering in current marriages to avoid the upheaval) and working their way toward "a Christian state". Remember, these are the Christofacists who want you dead, or "reformed", or burning in hell. I see no reason to give them what they want because of anger.

[Nikki Stone1]

270. The people who are denying you your rights are not the ones you will punish if this law passes

That has been my point all along. Why are you willing to punish birth control users, zero population types, the elderly, the impotent, and the disabled, among others, with this kind of law? Those who actually plan familes or decide against having children for environmental or personal reasons tend toward the more liberal side of the fence.

In your desire to lash out, you are going after the wrong people. Who will benefit from this law? The fundies who want to deny women birth control and force families to have children right away and more than they can support or bear. In your desire for revenge (and I am not saying you are wrong for feeling this way) you are hurting people who would be more inclined to support your cause and HELPING the agenda of the Christofacists, who would like you "reformed", dead, or burning in hell.

I understand why you would be enraged, no question. But be careful that in your attacks against heterosexuals that you don't end up hurting your allies and helping your enemies.

[mondo joe]

288. And yet the standard would be applied equally. NT

[Nikki Stone1]

dupe

..

[Nikki Stone1]

298. Which post are you responding to? (Just trying to make sure I haven't misunderstood you)

..

[Zhade]

135. What a stunningly clear lack of solidarity you've displayed.

Maybe this would make those who don't fight all that hard against our rights being denied work a lot harder.

Your argument garners no sympathy from me, when you can so easily express an utter lack of empathy for our plight.

[Nikki Stone1]

272. You want feelings from me, but I am not talking about feelings

I am talking about strategy, for one thing. If this law should pass--and there is some risk of it passing, despite the certainty of some--the people who will get hurt will be the people who tend to support you: the birth control users, family planners, the zero-population types, the disabled, the more liberal elderly who want to marry again. The first three groups listed tend to be philosophically opposed to the government in the bedroom and tend to support gay rights, including gay marriage.

The people who will BENEFIT if this law passes will be the Christofacists, who have no problem taking birth control and family planning away, who think that everyone should "increase and multiply" despite their ability or desire to care for many children. The Christofacists could easily go along with this bill since their world view is reinforced by it. Their world view also includes all gay people being "reformed", killed, or burning in hell.

Why are you trying to hurt your friends and reward your enemies?

Secondly, I am talking about a philosophical and moral perspective on risking the lives and well being of others for one's own gain. It is correct to take a calculated risk for oneself. It is immoral, in my opinion, to take a risk for others that, like this case, could end up with so drastic a loss.

If you want solidarity, don't alienate your friends by risking them so cavalierly.

[mondo joe]

273. Nikki, I suggest you look at WA state demographics.

Childless married couples outnumber all other household types in WA state.

There is no risk of this passing, except by the choice of the childless married couples.

[Nikki Stone1]

278. Mondo Joe, I suggest you look at the state legislators. They will be doing the actual voting

How many of them have fundie ties or have been funded by conservative money?

Further, now that the idea is out there, think of the red states that will see a law like this as a way around the gay marriage issue and might actually introduce and pass one to prevent gay marriage in their state.

[mondo joe]

285. No, they won't. It's an INITIATIVE. WA state has initiatives, voted on by the

people.

[Nikki Stone1]

295. Ah. Interesting. Though I imagine Dobson and his ilk will be busing voters to the polls

I hope you are right and that enough people will turn out to knock this thing on its ass.

[TechBear_Seattle]

426. That would indeed be funny

Because if this passes, there is absolutely no doubt it would be struck down. That would strike down the premise that marriage exists for the purpose of procreation, and the Talibangelicals lose forever the one and only one anti gay marriage argument that has stood up in court.

:popcorn:

[uppityperson]

292. Wrong. Initiatives are voted on by the people, not by the legislators.

[uppityperson]

291. I am in the "support" group you give and stand in solidarity.

Equal rights for all

[Nikki Stone1]

296. Which "support" group? [The law doesn't give equal rights, btw]

This law does not give equality. What the law does is take away marriage rights from all but those heterosexuals who will immediately reproduce. (Not those who simply can or wish to reproduce in the future, since there is a 3-year limit.) But, what about lesbian couples who intend to--and can-- reproduce right away with the help of a sperm bank? If equality were really the result, lesbian couples who promised to immediately reproduce should be able to marry as well. But this law does not allow for gay marriage. So some couples who are willing to immediately reproduce can marry (heteros) and others who are willing reproduce cannot marry (lesbian couples).


That's not equality.

[uppityperson]

301. This initiative emphasises a reason given to ban gay marriage.

The purpose of Marriage is for people to reproduce. That has been stated recently by WA state court. So, this initiative takes that (assinine) statement/description to its extreme. If you can't reproduce, you can't be married, hence pointing out radically the assinineness of the "marriage is for reproducing so gays shouldn't marry" argument. If that is not enough reason to say gays can't marry, then they should be able to.

Equal rights for marriage is the hope to come out of this, whether between hetero or homo sexually interacting consenting adult partners.

This support group from your previous post #272: "the people who will get hurt will be the people who tend to support you: the birth control users, family planners, the zero-population types, the disabled, the more liberal elderly who want to marry again."

[Nikki Stone1]

335. Which specific group? (You typed my list but don't specify which of the list you are)

Thanks.

[uppityperson]

336. What does it matter which ones of that group? What state do you live in?

[Nikki Stone1]

351. Interesting that you want my info but are unwilling to give me yours.

Do you always operate like that?

[uppityperson]

354. I did. You refuse.

Where you live matters. If I use contraception doesn't.

[Nikki Stone1]

372. You didn't. And now you're misrepresenting me. Game over.

FINIS

[uppityperson]

377. Where you live matters. If I use contraception doesn't.

[Occulus]

399. That's pretty shitty coming from you

Little Miss Profile Disabled. Whatsa matta- 'fraid of a little sunshine?

[Zhade]

312. If I thought it could possibly hurt you or them, I wouldn't support it.

So there's your answer.

[Nikki Stone1]

340. I totally believe that you (and others) are supporting this in good faith

I am not questioning that. What I am questioning is your certainly that things will turn out the way you want them to. I am also questioning the point of it all. In a post below, I said the following:

My argument is the ACTUAL INITIATIVE itself. The intiative does not give equal rights. It takes the right of marriage away from some straights on the basis of (immediate) procreation. But it does NOT give the right to marry to lesbian couples who might procreate (immediately) with the help of a sperm bank.

In essence, it's a sloppy law (at least as far as true equal rights is concerned) and if it were taken seriously by the right, it opens up the entire state to great risk for absolutely no legal gain for gay couples.

From what people have been saying on this thread, it's really kind of an emotional thing, a sort of "finger in your eye" to the Supreme Court of WA state. (That's what I mean when I say it's mostly about making a rhetorical point.) But it's a lot of sound and fury for no discernible payoff, and it takes a great risk if something should go wrong. It may also provide fodder for other (Red) states who may want to make an end run around gay marriage.

[Bluebear]

260. "I am not willing to take this risk for other people" What a hero you are! nt

[Nikki Stone1]

279. Not heroics. Just decency.

Why do feel comfortable risking other people's lives for a rhetorical point?

[uppityperson]

290. Equal rights is a "rhetorical point"?Whose lives are being risked by this initiative?

[Nikki Stone1]

297. Nope. And if the law resulted in equal rights, I could see support for it.

But see my response to you above.

[mondo joe]

299. It's sure a lot closer to equal. No procreation = no marriage.

The WA state court said that's the purpose of marriage, so let's see if the people of WA agree.

[Nikki Stone1]

331. But Procreation DOESN'T equal marriage, if you are a lesbian couple using a sperm bank

You still can't get married. So no, equality isn't there.

[mondo joe]

332. Again, not equal for those who procreate, but equal for those who do not.

Besides which, it's NOT PASSING ANYWAY.

[Nikki Stone1]

366. Hence it's not equal. The law doesn't advance the cause at all.

It just creates a lot of smoke for no payoff.

[blonndee]

333. A difference is that BOTH partners of the lesbian couple aren't procreating

biologically.

[Nikki Stone1]

368. Neither are BOTH partners of a straight couple using a sperm bank

And I don't see anything in the law prohibiting sperm banks for straight people.

(The husband may not be impotent but may not be able to reproduce with the woman he married for other reasons.)

[uppityperson]

302. post #301, lets stay in that subtopic area.

[Nikki Stone1]

338. There is a small response there and one here.

"The purpose of Marriage is for people to reproduce. That has been stated recently by WA state court. So, this initiative takes that (assinine) statement/description to its extreme. If you can't reproduce, you can't be married, hence pointing out radically the assinineness of the "marriage is for reproducing so gays shouldn't marry" argument. If that is not enough reason to say gays can't marry, then they should be able to. "

I understand what it is doing and the rhetorical point that it hopes to make.


"Equal rights for marriage is the hope to come out of this, whether between hetero or homo sexually interacting consenting adult partners."

I also understand that.

My argument is the ACTUAL INITIATIVE itself. The intiative does not give equal rights. It takes the right of marriage away from some straights on the basis of (immediate) procreation. But it does NOT give the right to marry to lesbian couples who might procreate (immediately) with the help of a sperm bank.

In essence, it's a sloppy law (at least as far as true equal rights is concerned) and if it were taken seriously by the right, it opens up the entire state to great risk for absolutely no legal gain for gay couples.

From what people have been saying on this thread, it's really kind of an emotional thing, a sort of "finger in your eye" to the Supreme Court of WA state. (That's what I mean when I say it's mostly about making a rhetorical point.) But it's a lot of sound and fury for no discernible payoff, and it takes a great risk if something should go wrong. It may also provide fodder for other (Red) states who may want to make an end run around gay marriage.

[uppityperson]

341. It's a sloppy law, probably unconstitutional, won't stand IF passes,but makes a point

It is a good point & the WA Supreme Court needs to be called on it now. What state do you live in?

[Nikki Stone1]

345. So a big risk is being taken to make a rhetorical point

THAT is my major problem with the law. That's what I have been trying to argue since the beginning of this thread.

[uppityperson]

346. Minimal risk. What state do you live in? nt

[Nikki Stone1]

349. Then why do it, if there's minimal risk of it passing?

What is the actual goal?

[uppityperson]

352. To make a point, to make changes. What state do you live in?

[mondo joe]

348. Jesus F Christ, the MAJORITY of households in the state are childless married

couples - that percentage is only increasing as it has for better than a decade.

You don't understand the state or even the initiative system. Why would those who do take your say-so over their own experience and knowledge?

[Nikki Stone1]

355. Yes, and you don't know if they will all vote, or even show up

Remember that no one thought Jesse the Body Ventura could become governor of Minnesota, but a bunch of young folks, who were allowed to register at the last minute, voted him in. How do you know that some people might not vote for it as a joke? Or they might read the ballot wrong? Seriously, there are lots of risks here.

Intiatives can be very tricky. Has any other similar initiative been approved and have the supporters of this initiative managed to get theirs close to yours on the ballot to confuse people? If I were Dobson's people, I would write another initiative, very close to this one, promoting a fundie agenda and make it vague enough that people would think it was the same or similar to yours. Then I would make sure that my agenda would require a "no" answer on my initiative. That way good liberals who didn't read carefully would think both were the same kind of thing and mark them both "no". (That's what they do in California.)

[mondo joe]

356. So you're saying Washington State political activists don't know our own state but you do?

You already made clear you don't know a thing about the state or its politics.

Leave it to those who do.

[uppityperson]

357. Ask what state poster live in, won't answer me.

[mondo joe]

359. Doesn't matter - she doesn't know about this state, and didn't even understand the initiative

system.

After ranting about the legislature passing the bill - which is pretty funny since it's a Dem controlled legislature - she was corrected. You might think at that point a person would think to learn more before commenting again.

[Nikki Stone1]

363. You won't tell me which group you belong to. I will if you will, Uppity Person

Promise! :)

[uppityperson]

373. all but disabled

[uppityperson]

379. Well? You promised. Where?

[uppityperson]

392. Well, this tells me something about you.

My child once asked how to tell if someone was telling the truth. We came up with: does the person do what they say they will do and do they take responsibility for their actions.

[Nikki Stone1]

362. I never made such a claim. I am saying that I understand the initiative process

And I understand that it can be tricky.

In California there's a fun little trick that is done all the time. Let's say your initiative ends up on our list of propositions, say prop 100. The fundies might, knowing your agenda is out there and that all good liberals know to vote "no", write a proposition of their own that also requires a "no" answer, but with the opposite effect. So you'd have a ballot that looked like this:

100. Marriage as Procreation Initiative
Should the state of California prohibit all persons from entering into marriage except those who are heterosexual AND willing to sign an agreement to produce a biological child of that marriage in three years? (Your Washington initiative) YES NO

101. Marriage for Procreation Purposes Initiative
Should the state of California not prohibit persons from entering into marriage except those who are not heterosexual AND not willing or able to sign an agreement to produce a biological child of that marriage in three years? YES NO (Dobson backed)


It's a little convoluted, but if your read carefully, you realize that if you confuse the two or just answer NO to both of them, you end up prohibiting gay marriage (by prop 101).

California propositions often do this sort of thing. You'll hear about a great environmental initiative and suddenly 2 others will appear right next to it on the ballot. What you don't know (if you don't read the websites or the very large book that gets mailed to Californians every election season) is which one is the real one, and which ones (next to it) are the decoys, backed by oil companies and the like.

That's why I asked in the last post are there any others along the same lines that are similar in nature?

[mondo joe]

364. That's funny since you kept going on about it being a bill despite the many

times it was described as an initiative.

You clearly didn't know about WA's demographics.

Washington state has plenty of politically active democrats - we know what we're doing here.

Check in again when you ditch your Republican governor.

[Nikki Stone1]

365. Joe, whether it is a bill or an initiative, the law would NOT allow procreating lesbians to marry

Attacking me personally does NOT change the fact that the law makes NOT ONE SINGLE ADVANCE for gay marriage. And it does nothing for equality, except make a very expensive rhetorical point. It's more performance art than lawmaking.

[mondo joe]

367. No, it wouldn't - but it would put the finding the court and the will of the people

to the test, which you've been told repeatedly.

And it's NOT GOING TO PASS ANYWAY.

Why you think people who know the state and the system better than you would take your say so is a mystery to me.

[Nikki Stone1]

369. No it wouldn't. That's my point. It does nothing to advance the cause

and if it's not going to pass anyway, then what's the point of doing it?

[uppityperson]

371. To. Make.A.Point, & to call WA supreme Court on its ruling.

[Nikki Stone1]

376. Couldn't you just have a demonstration in front of the court building?

A BIG one.

Why involve a real legal process in a what is, essentially, a public relations gambit?

(And as public relations, it's not terribly strategic. It might alienate people who support the cause, since they are the ones who might be hurt by this law if, God forbid, it should pass.)

[uppityperson]

378. Doesn't do the same thing, have the same impact.

[mondo joe]

375. Your question has been asked and answered ad nauseum.

It shows that the people of the state do not support the idea that marriage is for procreation, and that the court's finding is not consistent with it.

[Nikki Stone1]

381. It makes a rhetorical point. I get it. That's what I have been saying all along

And at this point, we are going around in circles because we've come to the crux if the thing:

1. The initiative as law would NOT advance gay marriage one iota
2. The initiative as law would NOT be fair to lesbian reproducing couples (hence not fair to at least 1/2 the gay community) so equality is not advanced
3. The initiative is NOT expected to pass
4. The initiative is about "making a (rhetorical) point."
5. The initiative has an emotional basis, thumbing noses at the Washington Supreme Court
6. The iniative, if it passed, would penalize the very people who support gay marriage: the child-free, the family planners, the zero-population people etc., as well as the disabled and the elderly who wish to remarry. It would end up not hurting (and maybe supporting) the Christofacists.




None of this sounds good to me.

[mondo joe]

383. You're welcome to your wrong opinion. But it's not your fight, it's not your state,

and your opinion is not relevant.

[uppityperson]

386. Well, I'm glad you're not a WA state resident.

Stay tuned and we'll post updates.

[electron_blue]

414. I agree with you in principle, but frankly I see this as zero risk

[keepCAblue]

191. Are you qualified to lecture? Hmmm...

Forgive me if you will, but your response seems wholly a knee-jerk reaction, one which screams "UNFAIR!" without bothering to learn more about the intent of the legislation or the group behind it.

If nothing else, perhaps this legislation will force narrow-thinking straights to walk in my shoes, if even for a scant moment. Unfair? Punishing responsible people? Unconstitutional? You betch yer wadded-up panties, Ms. Stone. Welcome to my world and the "stupid" and "ludicrous" laws which you heterosexuals have created and enacted. Doesn't feel so good standing on my side of the fence, does it? Well, good. Too bloody bad for you and your fellow hets. Maybe being forced to view the world from my side of the fence, forced to walk for miles and miles on end with no end in sight in my old gay shoes will open your eyes and your mind. Only then will you and your ruling class--including those of you who are quick to spout how you're "thoroughly in support of gay marriage" (so long as giving said support doesn't in any way inconvenience your privileged way of life)--only then, when this old gay shoe is uncomfortably on the other foot, will you straights question the constitutionality of the current laws and the Andersen ruling.

Empathy, Ms. Stone. Lace up these old weathered boots of discrimination and try 'em on for size. And then when your bruised, battered and bloody feet hurt so bone-weary bad that you think you can't walk another mile--another step--then and only then can you lecture me on how I should "fight for rights responsibly." Sexual minorities HAVE fought responsibly and will continue to do so, in spite of the mean, vicious and highly IRRESPONSIBLE laws which, for centuries, your *people* have slapped on us--like handcuffs--to keep us oppressed and marginalized.

When Dr. Martin Luther King sat in Birmingham jail, he wrote a letter to the white religious leaders who lectured him about fighting "responsibly," about not "hurting" the very people who would deign to support his cause -- much as you, in your reply post, Ms. Stone, have lectured me and, hence, all sexual minorities who struggle for equality. Here is Dr. King's reply to his critics, and mine, to you:

You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling, for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation.

The WA-DOMA website, in effect, echoes Dr. King's words. Read it.

http://www.wa-doma.org/

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.

[Nikki Stone1]

282. Please see my response to this (duplicate) post above

Thanks.

[intheflow]

58. This is exactly the point.

Thank you for articulating it so clearly.

[Nikki Stone1]

289. The rhetorical point is clear, intheflow. It's the logical consequences that people are ignoring

And the logical consequences of a law like this are disastrous. Let's say a Red state wants to prevent gay marriage from happening. They could pass a law like this and then bolster a Supreme Court case in their state against gay marriage by saying, "It's not about discrimination, it's about reproduction. See we have this law here..." And if you think a red state might not do this, think of how many of them are influenced by the far right GOP. (In the 1990s. 40% of our national House of Reps identified themselves as fundamentalists. Don't know what that number is up to now. Can you imagine some of these Red states in percentages?) I could see it passing for all sorts of political reasons, pushed by Christofacists who want God's law ("increase and multiply") and are no friend to women's rights or even a husband's right not to be overburdened with too many mouths to feed. Then what? You still don't have gay marriage, but now you have a "City of God" in which your chance for marriage is even less likely. You've hurt your friends--the family planners, zero population-growth types, and the disabled, the more liberal elderly who wish to remarry--and you've empowered your enemies.

Yes, it seems an unlikely scenario, but so did the NSA tapping my phone and the Pentagon's TIA-like program keeping track of my whole life. Unlikely things can, in factm, happen. Especially when precedent is created.

[mondo joe]

304. That's up to the red state. Not us.

They don't need our initiative to do that.

[Nikki Stone1]

342. Yes, but the fact that one state took such a draconian law to a legal level may be

enough to inspire legislators in some of these states to draft laws like these.

And I think there's a level of responsibility (or irresponsibility) there.

[mondo joe]

343. That's the risk in taking it to the state supreme court too. It's all risk. But this

is really not, because there is NO CHANCE OF ITS PASSAGE.

The majority of households in the state are childless married couples - and that percentage is only increasing.

[Nikki Stone1]

347. The are many different levels of risk, and not all can be equated

If there's no chance of its passage, then why do it?

[uppityperson]

350. Minimal risk, to make a big point.

[Nikki Stone1]

370. Using the intiative system, intending for a law not to pass, to make a point seems to be waste

Making stage smoke with real fire.

[uppityperson]

374. Your opinion. I live here, mine is different

[mondo joe]

353. Asked and answered already. NT

[uppityperson]

344. What state do you live in?

[ulysses]

23. I don't think you're getting the point.

The fundie argument is that marriage should be for those who can procreate. If we're going to apply that understanding of the law equally, as we should if we apply it at all, then heterosexuals who are unwilling or unable to procreate should be penalized in the same way as homosexuals.

Said as a hetero man, married nearly 14 years, and infertile.

[Nikki Stone1]

28. The rhetorical point is obvious; what you're not seeing are possible consequences of this law.

I agree that it is foolish to keep gays from marrying and have been in support of gay marriage for most of my adult life, which at this point, has been quite long. While the argument behind the proposed law seems to "beat the fundies at their own game", the actual potential results are chilling. Suppose the state of Washington cannot, for whatever reason, sanction gay marriage, even in the presence of this bill. (And yes, this could happen.) Then, this "brilliant" legal manoeuvre could lead to marriage being enshrined, in law, as for procreation only, and procreation within a specified period of time. The law would then prevent marriages between:

* straight people who want to wait more than 3 years to become parents (many for financial reasons)
* straight people who don't want to reproduce for personal and/or philosophical reasons (like population control)
* women past menopause who can't possibly get pregnant (except by extreme medical means) but who simply want a companion
* some disabled or impotent straight people

among others.

Look at this list. The first two groups (and quite possibly people in the 3rd and 4th) are much more inclined to be socially liberal, or at least the type who don't want to legislate your personal life. These are not fundies. You are antagonizing some of the very people who would help and have helped you.

The authors of this bill are assuming that it will NEVER pass. That is why they can risk some of their straight supporters. But backing political representatives into corners can have unintended effects. Up against the wall, some representatives might vote for a law like this rather than allowing gays to marry. Then what? Gays can't marry and neither can a lot of liberals. The fundies, who will have little problem with reproducing in 3 years, will be ok with the law, and you will have helped the very people who want to destroy your chances to be married at all.

Think it can't happen? Twenty years ago, no one thought any state would have ever have a draconian abortion ban like South Dakota. Then again, 20 years ago, Roe v. Wade was law of the land, and the arguments making their way through the courts were not taken seriously by the public. Until Webster.

You are risking decent people to score off the fundies. The gamble may make sense to you, but the stakes are way too high for decent people, YOUR supporters, to be taken so lightly.

[Lex]

31. It's not going to pass. It was done to make a point.

Don't lose sleep over it actually passing.

[ulysses]

36. amen.

No fundie politican alive is going to vote for a bill that might actually end up annulling a heterosexual marriage on this issue. It's all about the hypocrisy.

[Nikki Stone1]

42. You have no idea what these people will vote for.

I hope that you are correct, but quite frankly, when you call someone's bluff, you may find out they weren't bluffing.

[Bjorn Against]

107. There won't be enough who were not bluffing to make a majority

Anyone who truly supported such a measure would lose their seat real quickly, the bill very likely won't even get a single vote. What they are doing however is forcing all the anti-gay politicians to vote against their own arguments and exposing their hypocrisy.

The chances of this actually passing are less than zero, so you do not need to worry about any heterosexual marriages being annulled.

[Nikki Stone1]

280. I hope you are right for Washington State and any other RED state that might try this

to preclude any court decision on gay marriage. Now that the idea is out there, I can see a really God-fearing red state, like Alabama, actually passing a law like this to prevent gays from fighting for the right to marry. The fundies have no problem with denying birth control to people and making them have and raise as many children as possible regardless of desire or capacity to do so.

[Nikki Stone1]

39. When you push legislators against the wall, lots of unforeseen things can happen

No one thought an abortion ban like the one in South Dakota would happen in the late 80s. I am sure that no one EVER pictured an entire Congress called into session for one brain-dead woman, whose husband had the right (and had it affirmed by a number of court) to remove a feeding tube. An I wonder how many people thought that the President could just ignore a law by writing a signing statement that completely contradicted or negated what had been passed. I could go on and on here, but you get the picture.

In today's climate, many things can happen that were once considered impossible. "It's not going to pass" is not a prediction; it's just an opinion

[Lex]

41. When no one ever takes a stand, or gets off the sidelines wringing their hands,

then nothing ever gets accomplished.

Playing it safe time is over. Calling them on their bullshit time has started.

IMHO.

[Nikki Stone1]

44. And to hell with the people you could hurt, even if these people are your allies

You may be playing right into the fundies' hands. They have no problem with forcing marriages to breed.

[Lex]

49. It's a calculated risk.

For example, I could stay up all night worrying about things that have a minimum chance of happening in the middle of the night -- earthquake, robbery, for example -- or I could put the risk in its proper perspective and get on with life.

It's a choice we all have to make about numerous things every day.

The fearful over-estimate risks and get little accomplished.

[Nikki Stone1]

51. It is a calculated risk with other people's lives, not with those of the group who chose the risk

This is not a natural disaster. It was a choice that didn't have to be taken.

[Lex]

55. You misunderstand the risk involved of it passing.

The involvement of me, you, or ten thousand other people isn't the point. Like risks with mass transit, for example, the benefits are great and the risks are minimal, but perhaps not non-existent.

Anyway, clearly there will just have to be a hand-wringing brigade on this, just like with any other bold political move.

[Nikki Stone1]

78. No, I understand better than you do what can happen when you back people against a wall

Daily risks like mass transit do not involve putting authorities on the defensive in a hostile political climate.

[mondo joe]

81. Let 'em. What the worst possible outcome? Equality.

Let people see what they're doing.

[Nikki Stone1]

89. No, the worst outcome is NOT equality. Gays still can't marry, straight people can't marry

unless they have kids right away, and lots of married people without children, for various reasons, lose their marital status, including the disabled, the impotent, the zero population growth types, and the elderly who marry post divorce or widowhood. Straights who want to produce children right away (including most Chrisofacists (our enemies, remember?)) will still be able to marry and gays who want children will STILL not have equality, especially gay men who cannot reproduce on their own within the marriage. (Gay women still have sperm banks, so maybe there will be an amendment to the law saying that the resulting children have to be created from DNA of both parents, which would knock out some types of fertility treatment.)

What's the win? A term. "Marriage" as opposed to "domestic partnership" (assuming that, as in most cases, the legal rights are the same). The win is a WORD. The loss is just unbelievably awful.

Now I hope that the Washington legislature does the right thing, passes gay marriage and this whole incident turns into a big nothing, except for the Christofacists who will spend even more time focused on the GOP and the Rapture. But, this method may backfire. Its very manipulativeness can get some legislators pissed off enough to vote for it. And with the pressure from Dobson and his ilk, we might see some unexpected results. That's what worries me.

[mondo joe]

94. That's equality. The state court says there is a procreation test for marriage - now they

are being asked to apply it equally.

And since there is no domestic partnership here, it's not the difference of a word, but the difference in civil rights.

[Nikki Stone1]

274. That's NOT equality. Look at my post again

Look, I am and have always been very pro gay marriage. I think it is ludicrous that marriage rights are being denied.

What I don't like here is the use of the legislative process to make a rhetorical point. If the law doesn't pass, this doesn't change the WA supreme court decision. If the law does pass, it's a horrific blow to those who plan their families, use birth control, choose not to have children, who are disabled, etc. If the law passes, gays still don't have the right to get married, but some straights still do--those straights who follow more Christian principles. ( I can easily see the more fundamentalist legislators going along with this, especially under pressure from Dobson and others. )

[mondo joe]

283. I think equality is more than rhetorical.

If it doesn't pass it proves that WA state residents do not consider procreation necessary for marriage.

If by some miracle it passes, there is no way it will stand.

If by some uber miracle it passes and stands, the people will overturn it - and then back to the first point.

[Nikki Stone1]

294. So do I. Which is why I wonder why you are equating the two

This law does not give equality. What the law does is take away marriage rights from all but those heterosexuals who will immediately reproduce. (Not those who simply can or wish to reproduce in the future, since there is a 3-year limit.) But, what about lesbian couples who intend to--and can-- reproduce right away with the help of a sperm bank? If equality were really the result, lesbian couples who promised to immediately reproduce should be able to marry as well. But this law does not allow for gay marriage. So some couples who are willing to immediately reproduce can marry (heteros) and others who are willing reproduce cannot marry (lesbian couples).


That's not equality.

[mondo joe]

303. The hetero couples who want to reproduce can remarry when they decide to get on the stick.

The gay couples with kids will be no worse off - but they'll be closer to equal.

Not that the initiative will pass.

[Nikki Stone1]

309. "Closer to equal"? How?

Hetero couple, with immediate plans to reproduce, may marry = lesbian couple, with immediate plans to reproduce, NOT allowed to marry?

In what universe is this equal? Or closer to equal?

Gays gain nothing by this. How is that closer to equal?

[mondo joe]

321. First off, gays don't need to be told by you what we gain or don't.

Secondly, the state says procreation is the purpose of marriage - this tests it.

[uppityperson]

326. IF the purpose of marriage is NOT procreation, then gays should be able to marry.

This initiative sets a much more restrictive measure on marriage. True, by itself it is much more restrictive. By saying "hell no" to this, people will also be saying "hell no" to the purpose of marriage is to procreate, thus opening marriage up to gays.

I don't see why people don't get this. I think this initiative is a great way of making a point. As far as having a chance to pass, pshaw, no way. It will make a point though.

[Nikki Stone1]

390. Someone has to tell you what the law actually says because you are making false claims for it

IT DOES NOT GIVE ANY KIND OF EQUALITY.

If it did, lesbian couples who were willing to immediately reproduce could marry. The fact that they can't, even though one of the women could reproduce in her own body with the help of a sperm bank, means that there ISN'T equality.

[uppityperson]

391. You promised and didn't follow through.

[Reterr]

112. That is equality actually.NT

[Nikki Stone1]

275. No it's not. Gays still cannot marry, but some straights will be able to

How is that equality? Surely some gays intend to have children.

[mondo joe]

286. It's equality because the same standard (procreation) is applied to all. NT

[Nikki Stone1]

310. But it's not! Lesbians can procreate without a surrogate

Sperm bank, like lots of hetero women. But lesbians still can't marry by this law, even if they start reproducing right away. Straights, on the other hand, can under the same circumstances. The standard of procreation is NOT equal here.

[uppityperson]

313. Here is from their website.

http://www.wa-doma.org/
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.

Purpose is to eventually get equal rights, to prompt discussion, to get the ball rolling on that. No, this will not give equal rights, but is an assinine initiative towards getting there.

[Nikki Stone1]

328. But the letter of the law does NOT grant equal rights in the least, despite the good intentions

I could burn a dog house in my backyard and say that my intention is to bring awareness to animal cruelty. And that may be my intent. But the actual consequences are that my dog now has no home and my neighbors are scared of the smoke and have called the fire department. My message gets lost in the very real consequences. That is what I see happening here.

[uppityperson]

330. It won't pass. Where are you?

[uppityperson]

334. Your example doesn't compare

How would burning a dog house bring awareness to animal cruelty? Are you going to hold a press conference while you do so, or put out petitions for an initiative to ban dog house burning? Not the same.

[Jonathan50]

398. Equal rights for all is my credo.

I got into a HUGE flamewar a few years ago on an atheist's website that's normally quite calm and rational by using the same sort of argument about equal rights to force cannabis legalization by making alcohol illegal.

Wow, did I get some irrational and hate filled responses. Much like the anti smoking threads here.

I think your idea is great and I support you completely.

[uppityperson]

189. Define "marry" or "marriage".

[Nikki Stone1]

276. How does this bill define it? (That's what's important. Not my definition.)

...

[mondo joe]

71. Then every court case is a calculated risk. Just by going to the state supreme court

we risked this outcome.

[Nikki Stone1]

83. And this case has an extremely high cost if it goes wrong--for people not involved in the suit

Not every court case is like that. Not even every Supreme Court case.

And I don't know that it is worth the risk to so many people.

[mondo joe]

85. Not so. The supreme court could have ruled in such a way as would be as

harmful. It's happened.

[Nikki Stone1]

92. I'm not sure what you're responding to here. The verb tense doesn't make sense

If your point is that sometimes Supreme Court decisions are harmful, OF COURSE they can be. Just look at Webster. However, great harm like this is usually done by suits brought by our enemies, not by ourselves. If through some fluke this law should pass, it is the LIBERAL married people who will be hurt, not the Christofacists. I fear alienating friends and supporters.

[mondo joe]

95. The potential exists in any supreme court case to hurt people. It's risk.

Same applies to initiatives. It's risk.

[maggiegault]

164. *Clearing Throat* And I Quote...

* 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;

(Now, call me crazy, but I think that just said that people who do not have kids within three years of saying "I Do" will have their marriages *automatically* annulled. So, in other words, as a result of this initiative being brought about by an activist group for gay people, my heterosexual, childfree, liberal Democrat marriage would be annulled. Automatically.)

* 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

(Did you get that? "Filing proof of procreation." Ain't nothing in there about those of us heteros who are married but do not WANT children.)

* make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits.

(In other words, throw my childfree ass in jail to rot, or just let me go without health insurance. You know, me with a chronic and very serious illness. Screw me. Screw millions of others like me.)

But hey! You made your point, right? Oh, right. I forgot. "It won't pass."

Who do you think you are penalizing here? I can see fundies signing right up to get behind this measure. Do you think that you are hurting heterosexuals who currently have kids and live lives of quiet desperation in the suburbs? Newsflash: they could give a damn about you or anyone else. Then again, they love official validation of their life choices, so you might just get some signatures there, too.

Then again, "it won't pass."

You're no better than they are, friend. And this time, you are alienating a large segment of the population who are very sympathetic to your cause.

[Zhade]

167. The citizens have to pass it. Fundies aren't a majority.

NT!

[maggiegault]

170. Are you SURE about that?

They're like cockroaches. For every one bigoted asshole you see, hiding behind the Bible, there are fifty others who think just like them.

[Zhade]

174. 100% certain? No. Only about 95%.

Here's the thing - those you describe as hiding in the shadows are usually married.

They're going to fuck with their own marriage?

Please. Not going to happen.

[mondo joe]

180. Married couples WITHOUT children are the most common hosehold type in WA state.

Just FYI -



Family
Type Percent
Married Couple with Children 36.1%
Married Couple without Children 42.7%
Single with Children 13.4%
Single without Children 7.8%

[maggiegault]

196. Oh, So You're ADMITTING That This Is A Pointless Waste Of Energy And Time

I see.

You know, because nothing furthers a cause more than pointless endeavors designed with no consideration whatsoever of the intended audience.

You're right, apparently, about "childless" people in Washington. All the more reason to refrain from introducing initiatives that will alienate them from your cause.

Those childless people will see you as targeting them, and rightfully so. These are people who are, traditionally, all for marriage rights for ALL people. Very smart, Maria. Very smart.

Do you honestly think that this is going to get you ANYWHERE? Sadly, I think that you do, and it is going to backfire on you in many ways. What a shame.

Oh, and the next time you visit my blog, don't come over and trash my other visitors. And be man enough to sign your name, Anonymous.

[mondo joe]

198. The childless couples in WA state are a lot smarter than you think they are.

And MUCH less hysterical than you think.

It's a win no matter what.

People will reject the initiative - AS PREDICTED - which will prove that WA state residents do not consider procreation a condition of marriage.

Or it miraculously passes and the majority is outraged and passes an initiative to say procreation is not a condition of marriage.

[uppityperson]

207. I'm in a childless marriage and support this wholey. As do many friends

We think it's a great idea, equality for all.

[Nikki Stone1]

300. If the initiative appears on the primary ballot, it could help voter turnout--for both sides

But I think it does antagonize.

[mondo joe]

177. Yeah, I just live in Washington state - of course I don't have a clue about the

voters here.

:eyes:

Do you know that fewer than 20% of Seattle households include children?

[Zhade]

181. LOL!

You just defeated every "they'll be so pissed" argument in this thread.

Nicely played!

[uppityperson]

190. Thank you Mondo Joe.

amazing, those that don't get this.

[Nikki Stone1]

284. Mondo Joe, usually the hurt comes from the other side, not our own side

That's what worries me here.

[mondo joe]

287. The risk comes from any side. If Loving v Virginia had gone the other way,

interracial marriage could have been illegal across the US.

[Nikki Stone1]

306. True, but Supreme Court cases are usually prepared over time, are based on precedent and the outcome

is truly a calculated risk, calculated to be in one's favor. They are usually focused on specific cases which are carefully chosen, based on the issue and on precedent, and in which the issue being argued is not marred by extenuating factors. This minimizes risk.

On the other hand, the initiative in Washington does not minimize risk and may maximize it. Opening a can of worms in the form of a plebescite designed fan as much emotion as possible is the exact opposite of calculation and responsibility.

[uppityperson]

308. Do you really feel the Supreme Court will make a ruling based on a state's intiative?

IF enough people here voted to pass this, it would be ruled out right away. The Supreme Court, if it took on a case about this, would have only that ruling to use for precedent. What state are you in? I'm in WA.

[Nikki Stone1]

311. I don't think that point was ever asserted. I did assert that a Red state might use this initiative

as a blueprint for a law to prevent gay marriage. See in my previous responses to you.

[uppityperson]

315. Here is what I am replying to.

"True, but Supreme Court cases are usually prepared over time, are based on precedent and the outcome is truly a calculated risk, calculated to be in one's favor." I do not think the Supreme Court will use a state initiative like this as precedent. Red states and Blue states already prevent gay marriage. I do not see how a WA state initiative would give them more fodder. What state are you in? I am in WA.

[Nikki Stone1]

323. That statement doesn't link Supreme Court cases to initiatives; it shows how they are different

So I still am having a hard time with the question, but to answer it, I will say that the Supreme Court uses its own legal rulings and history as precedent, as well considering legal rulings from elsewhere. I don't think it gives a lot weight to intiatives unless those initiatives are being challenged in their court.

As for the Red states who outlaw gay marriage, those laws WILL be challenged by court cases. When they are challenged, it might helpful for a Red state to have already tackled this issue by passing a law requiring some form of reproduction in marriage to substiantiate its later legal claims that marriage is about reproduction and gays (at least men) cannot reproduce. The problem is that the politicians and people most likely to support this law would be fundamentalist Christians, and a law like this would further their agenda.

[uppityperson]

329. Where do you live?

[mondo joe]

324. You're entitled to your opinion. But frankly, given that you know nothing about

WA demographics, nor even understand the initiative process, you might consider having faith in the people who DO know those things, rather than asking them to take your word for it.

[Nikki Stone1]

382. Mondo Joe, look at the LAW itself. The letter of the law.

Whether it's an initiative or a bill, the words will become law if it passes. So look at the words. And you will see that there is no advance in gay marriage. It's just sort of a nose thumbing to the Supreme Court. Like a big, giant, risky, expensive "nya nya". Isn't that money better spent in making actual gains?????

[mondo joe]

389. We've already addressed this: it's an exceptionally minor risk.

And while you say it does not advance the cause, those who know better diisagree.

Thank you.

[Missy Vixen]

101. We live in Washington State

We were married here almost fourteen years ago. We have made it clear to all that we had no plans to procreate, and we will not.

>It was a choice that didn't have to be taken.<

I disagree. It was the only way to showcase the issue in a way that most will comprehend.

I fully support this initiative, even if our marriage ends up annulled because of it. Let's see what happens when the "marriage means procreation" crowd has to actually explain themselves to hundreds of thousands who now find themselves with invalid marriages.

Julie

[donco6]

221. Precisely.

Good post - right to the point.

[Nikki Stone1]

307. But that fundie crowd will still be married, and may not much care about you

You're not living the "increase and multiply" law of God so they may consider you expendable.

All the same, I wish you the best and hope this bill does all the good it possibly can.

[Missy Vixen]

401. We can drive four hours and get remarried the same day we apply for a license in Oregon

Those who are gay don't have that option. They still have no legal recognition of their lifetime partnerships. NONE.

Julie

[Zhade]

153. Dr. King took risks that led to his followers being beaten and even killed.

Should he have not initiated the actions he did, even though he knew that would likely happen to at least some of them?

[mondo joe]

157. For that matter, going to the Supreme Court has often created a risk for others.

Just think of how many decisions resulted in progress across the board that COULD have gone the other way.

Whenever we fight for our rights, we take a risk.

[maggiegault]

169. Dr. King Never Advocated Removing Rights Of Others To Further His Cause, Either

[Zhade]

176. Yet he must have known some of his actions would result in that.

He still advocated illegal nonviolent actions, during which many minorites' human rights were violated.

[mondo joe]

178. Are you saying Dr King had no idea that his activities might result in lynchings and

murders of perfectly innocent people?

[Nikki Stone1]

314. I think what maggie is saying is that Dr. King did not attack the rights of others, but

worked toward African Americans having those same rights.

I don't think she was referring to conseqnces of the Civil Rights Movement, like the reaction of racist whites toward African American individuals.

[Zhade]

320. These activists aren't attacking anyone's rights. The law they're trying to point up is.

NT!

[Nikki Stone1]

384. The law they wrote DOES attack the rights of people. That is one of my big beefs about it

If it were to pass, the law would say that marriages without children (whether through choice, sterility, age, birth control/family planning, disability, etc.) would be invalid. This IS attacking people's rights.

[uppityperson]

387. Do you live in WA?

[bread_and_roses]

163. Laws should be applyed equally, yes? That's the point.

You are not only getting yourself in a swivet about something that will never pass, or be enforced if in some alternate universe it did, but essentially saying that the LGBT community should protect YOUR rights at the expense of theirs. Why should they? After all, if enough Heteros made enough noise, this nonsense would have stopped a long time ago. We don't.

This is something that Abbie Hoffman might have dreamed up - I say hurrah.

[Nikki Stone1]

316. But this law WON'T cause laws to be applied equally. Let's say

I am a straight woman, willing to reproduce immediately. According to this law. I am allowed to marry a man and start a family.

But let's say I am a lesbian, willing to reproduce immediately (via sperm bank, like some straight women.). According to this law I am NOT allowed to marry my female lover.

This law does not grant gays equality, even those gays who can reproduce in their own bodies.

THAT is the problem. The law is not about equality.

[uppityperson]

318. You are right. This initiative is to further Restrict "marriage"

Make it so absurd, get more people, even legistlators (hopefully) working on what "marriage" is and hopefully get rid of some of the other laws that restrict marriage to 1 man 1 woman. Restrict it further to make it more open eventually.

[mondo joe]

327. It won't give everyone who does procreate equality, but it does to those who don't.

That's closer to equal than we are today.

[uppityperson]

187. Wrong. Many of us have been continually working against abortion restrictions.

"No one thought an abortion ban like the one in South Dakota would happen in the late 80s." is wrong, as wrong as no one ever expected anyone to fly airplanes into buildings. Because perhaps you were not hearing the action we were taking to slow down choice restrictions does not mean that it wasn't happening.

It probably won't pass, but if it did, that would open up some really interesting things to happen.

[LostinVA]

74. Bingo

Methinks someone just wants to argue about this for argument's sake.

[Katherine Brengle]

43. You make good points --

there are some *ifs* here that are impossible to foresee.

I don't think the worst will happen personally, but you really do never know.

[Nikki Stone1]

45. I hope that the fundies stand down, but quite frankly, I think this may simply spur them on

And decent people will get hurt in the process.

[Katherine Brengle]

56. Well, don't forget --

even if they decided to run with this, actually getting a law like this on the books AND held up in the courts would be extremely difficult and not very likely.

It would be disturbing to see it taken to that level though...

[gristy]

105. It's NOT going to pass

NOT NOT NOT

[maggiegault]

234. I Agree With You 100%

It's playing God with a lot of innocent people's lives and marriages.

[Burnsey_Koenig]

99. Then these people should wait to marry.

straight people who want to wait more than 3 years to become parents (many for financial reasons)

Then wait to marry that person until you are ready.


* straight people who don't want to reproduce for personal and/or philosophical reasons (like population control)

Then live "in sin" like those of us who have been together for 10 years and cannot marry.

* women past menopause who can't possibly get pregnant (except by extreme medical means) but who simply want a companion

Then live together without the benefits of marriage just like we are forced to do.


* some disabled or impotent straight people

Then live together without the benefit of marriage as we are made to do.


It is pretty simple, either the laws and their rationale apply to all xcitizens or they don't. If the government wishes to hold one set of people to one standard, then that standard should be the same for everyone.

[maggiegault]

123. So, In Other Words...

...screw an entire segment of the straight population because YOU cannot have your way.

I support your right to marry. Just don't get those rights at the expense of mine. Don't mess with my lifestyle, and don't take on the childfree population of the United States (of which there are many many many in Washington).

"Live "in sin" like those of us who have been together for 10 years and cannot marry."

So, in other words, fight discrimination and prejudice by targeting another demographic (99.9% of whom, by the way, are already discriminated against in this society, and who are on YOUR SIDE when it comes to your struggle).

Good luck with that. You should be ashamed of yourself. What you are doing to childfree people is THE EXACT SAME THING that is being done to you. So, tell me again how you are any better?

[mondo joe]

129. Good thing you weren't around for the Montgomery Bus Boycott.

There were people who were pissed because it inconvenienced them.

"What you are doing to childfree people is THE EXACT SAME THING that is being done to you. So, tell me again how you are any better?"

It's not any better - it's the "exact same thing" which is otherwise known as equality.

[maggiegault]

136. So, In Other Words...

...you ARE no better than the fundie freaks who have made your lives a misery for as long as history can remember.

You're right about it being the "exact same thing." It's the exact same thing that JesusFreak fundies do. That's really something to be proud of. As I said, good luck with that. *eye roll*

[mondo joe]

138. The Montgomery Bus Boycotts inconvenienced people too. NT

[Name removed]

156. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

166. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mondo joe]

173. The fundies can do what they like. This will never pass in WA state.

And if by a miracle it did, who am I to stand in the way of the majority passing laws on the majority.

[uppityperson]

192. live "in sin"? Define "marriage"

Is it married in the church before the eyes of god? (do away with all marriages that aren't church done then)

[WernhamHogg]

119. Excellent Post, Nikki Stone1 !

I am TOTALLY in support of equal rights for all, but I think this bill is a terrible, high risk, poorly thought out way of making a political point. Gay rights are already an important issue to me and they have been for a very long time, I am totally in support of gays being allowed to marry and/or have kids, I love my gay friends and I will always fight for their rights. However, I fear that if this bill happens to pass (I know it's chances are slim to none, but as you pointed out -- you just never know these days) I fear it will pit straight, childless couples (childless for any number of reasons) many of whom already support of equality for gays, AGAINST gays, rather than against the intended target: the fundies.

[Zhade]

256. Married childless couples are a majority in the state. Citizens will vote on this.

It. Won't. Pass.

[Nikki Stone1]

388. But it might have other unintended consequences for the gay community

and for the left as a whole. The previous poster said:

"I fear it will pit straight, childless couples (childless for any number of reasons) many of whom already support of equality for gays, AGAINST gays, rather than against the intended target: the fundies."

And THIS is a huge fear of mine. The left will end up targeting each other again because of the law itself and the publicity it gets. And the fundies win.

[Nikki Stone1]

385. Thank you. I, too , am worried that this thing could severely backfire.

Sadly, I am persona non grata on this thread, but I am really afraid that this intiative will have many unintended consequences. People just aren't thinking. They are reacting emotionally.

"I fear it will pit straight, childless couples (childless for any number of reasons) many of whom already support of equality for gays, AGAINST gays, rather than against the intended target: the fundies."

A very strong possibility. And how about the disabled community? The family planning (responsible) types.

I'm glad someone gets it. I feel like I'm screaming into a vacuum.

[uppityperson]

186. Nikki, it won't pass. It is to prove a point.

If you really are truly afraid that trying to make this point risks so much, all you write, I feel very sorry for you. 20 yrs ago of course we all thought many states would try to overturn Roe vs Wade as they have tried and tried ever since it passed. Do you really believe that 20 yrs ago the arguments against Roe vs Wade were not taken seriously by (some) of the public? I am curious, how old are you, where have you been living (what part of country)? I am a middle aged woman who has lived mostly in midwest and nw areas, been active in family planning ever since a young adult. Believe me, maintaining Roe vs Wade has been a struggle, all these yrs.

This won't pass, but will make a good point. The stakes are too high for those who are fearful.

[ulysses]

419. just as an aside, but

I'm not gay. I am, however, a married man who is sterile as a result of cancer treatments. I'm not taking "my" supporters lightly - I'm among the supporters.

[westerebus]

67. She gets the point alright.

Virginia passed a law in the legislature that only a man and a woman constitute a married couple called the marriage protection act. Then they passed another law by referendum in the last election that denies "family" rights to cohabitation adults. Doesn't matter if your are gay or straight or any combination their of.
The law will be challenged in court. In the mean time it is the law. The turn out for the election was pumped up to get fundies out to vote based on this issues. We did get Jim Webb elected, so what does this tell you?
We also have a law the declares it a right to hunt and fish, a pro concealed-carry gun law, and one of the best pre pay college programs in the states.
So be careful. Politics makes for odd bedfellows. Pardon the pun.

[mondo joe]

70. Then the worst thing we'd acheive would be EQUALITY. NT

[Catfight]

82. Exactly, everyone should experience discrimination, they'd be less

inclined to impose their 'views' on others when it hits home.

[maggiegault]

139. I'm Not Imposing Any Views

...except that gays should have the exact same rights to marry under the law as heterosexuals do.

And how am I thanked for this? By having discriminatory legislation proposed against me, mine, and millions like me.

Fighting discrimination with more discrimination IS equality, all right. It's equality, fundie whackjob-style. Oh, and it's also just more discrimination.

[Catfight]

410. Arguing for the rights you already possess is hardly experiencing

discrimination. Then why is marriage even allowed in the United States? What is the purpose of it? It seems to me the entire purpose of marriage is to discriminate against people who do not wish to legally get entwined into someone else's life? Why get married? Let's abolish the whole thing.

[westerebus]

84. How does denying

rights to any one make everyone equal? Which is the point, I think of what the courts in several states have said. That part in the Constitution "ALL men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights..." is inclusive of the " WE the PEOPLE".
I don't believe a procreation test is a validation for marriage. The last thing I want to see is that on the ballot in this state. Hell, they'd pass it just to piss folks off on both sides.

[mondo joe]

86. Because that's where the bar was set for gays. If the same rationale is applied

to everyone in the state, then we are treated equally.

I don't believe in a procreation test either - but since the WA State Supreme Court has said it exists, let's just see.

[ulysses]

97. but procreation is *already* a validation for marriage.

It's just that the validation is only applied to gay folks.

[mondo joe]

98. Precisely. And the voters ought to see what that looks like when applied equallly. NT

[westerebus]

110. There is an old blues song

the lyrics are: "misery loves company and that's why I love you". So inequality spread across the boards is better than inequality determined by sexual orientation? Its' still bigotry any way you cut it. Macro bigotry is no better than micro bigotry.
Virginians looked at a hateful, discriminatory and abusive law and said:yes. They voted to deny rights to themselves just so other people can't have them. Tell me that's not nuts?
The point is not about the debate or strategy. It's about alienating the folks that are on the side that believes everybody is entitled to the same rights. That does not mean you will get fundies to agree with you. If cheny's daughter's partner is having a baby does that fit the definition of procreation?
Yes the WA supreme court is way wrong to pose procreation as the issues. So throwing it back at them helps how? I've been married and divorced twice. Please come join us heteros for all the fun and games as soon as possible. LOL!!

[mondo joe]

117. How exactly is it inequality to apply it across the board?

To the contrary, that's what equality IS.

The WA Court declared marriage is for procreation. That standard is not applied equally -- it is only applied to gays.

So let's see if people agree with the court. If they don't, it then shows that that is NOT what people think marriage is.

If by some miracle it passes and the courts overturn it, we'll have another leg to stand on.

[ProudDad]

60. You are missing the POINT

It's political satire for a purpose. If the Wash Supreme Court is fucked up enough to declare that the state could prevent gay and lesbian couples from marrying because the state has a legitimate interest in preserving marriage for procreation, than their ASSES should be tested!!

It's obviously an "unconstitutional" initiative just as the Wash Court's fucked up ruling is "unconstitutional".

[LostinVA]

73. No, it is brilliant -- you're not getting the point of it -- Jeebus

[DWilliamsamh]

80. Your not seeing the political strategy

The law as written has NO chance of passing. The sponsors know that. The introduction of such a law is a calculated to illuminate the ridiculous nature of this particular argument against civil sanction of gay marriage. Period.

Those against gay marriage have only ONE reason that isn't directly connected to theology to stand on for their continued opposition: the state's interest in encouraging stable family units for express purpose of the procreation and raising of productive citizens. All this legislation is aimed at is exposing that the sanction of civil marriage is conferred every single solitary day on hundreds and thousands of couples who have no immediate or, in some cases, long term plans to procreate. So why should there be state sanction (along with the benefits) of those marriages?

It is a brilliant way to FORCE public debate of the removal of this fig leaf of bigotry.

[donco6]

122. Oh c'mon Nikki - that's the point! It's STUPID! They're just . . .

. . . pointing out the obvious.

[TechBear_Seattle]

424. You don't seem to understand

Sorry for jumping in late, but I've been very busy this last week.

Last July, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that couples who are unable to further the legitimate state interest of having children without "third party assistance" (ie adoption, in vitro fertilization, the use of surrogates, etc.) do not have a right to be married. Using this premise, the Court then stated that it was neither a violation of civil rights nor unconstitutional to prohibit same sex couples from getting married, because they are unable to further the legitimate state interest of having children together.

WE ARE NOT TAKING AWAY ANYONE'S RIGHTS. The Washington Supreme Court has already ruled that there exist no rights. We are merely taking this ruling and holding it up in a way that shows how stupid, unjust and unfair it really is. We are doing this through reductio ad absurdum, taking our opponents' argument -- marriage exists for the purpose of procreation -- and reducing it to its absurd, but perfectly logical, conclusion.

If you have a beef with this issue, it would better be addressed to the Washington Supreme Court.

[MasonJar]

22. Touche.

[WindRavenX]

24. Brilliant.

Just brilliant.

[Critters2]

26. Brilliant!!

When a church member told me marriage was only for procreation, I told him that we should stop doing weddings for any woman past child-bearing age. He hasn't raised this again.

[piedmont]

27. Awesome. With perfect logic, beat them over the head with their own argument. nt

[Nikki Stone1]

29. Backing political representatives into corners can have unintended effects.

Are you so sure a bill like this won't pass? In going this far to make a point, you may seal the fate of a lot of decent people. (Ie, not fundies.)

[WindRavenX]

32. how on earth would this bill passed?

You already did a good job of showing precisely why it won't--people wait to have kids, some chose not too, etc. No one would pass it--hence it's effectiveness at exposing the anti-gay marriage rhetoric as completely hypocritical.

[Lex]

35. It won't.

For precisely the reasons you said.

[Nikki Stone1]

46. You need to look at the Washington legislature for that, not the people

Politicians often respond to pressures that are not majority beliefs. Look at Terri Schiavo. The vast majority of Americans wanted her left alone and wanted her life or death to be a private matter. These vast numbers did not stop a tiny minority from being Congress's focus. For the sake of the fundie votes, Congress called a special session over a matter that had already been decided in several courts of law. Congress was not responding to the voters or to public opinion, but to their own political motivations. They did NOT represent the will of the people in that case. I have no reason to believe that any legislature will necessarily support the will of the people in this kind of vote.

[mondo joe]

53. This is an iniative -- not a bill.

Initiatives are determined by the voters.

[TechBear_Seattle]

425. It is not a bill, it is an initiative

If we can collect enough valid signatures, it will go to the voters of Washington State. Chances are good that it would not pass, but there is a small possibility. In that case, we have no doubt at all that a Supreme Court -- either Washington or the United States -- will strike it down for being patently unconstitutional. Since I-957 follows directly and solidly from the premise used in the Washington court's defense of marriage ruling, it, too, would be struck down. That is ultimately what we are aiming for.

[piedmont]

33. Even if it passes, it's perfectly unconstitutional.

It points out the utter stupidity of the "marriage is for procreating" argument.

[Lex]

34. Exactly.

nt

[Nikki Stone1]

47. NSA spying is unconstitutional. I have yet to see it stopped.

Seriously, in our current climate, a bill like this is a real wild card.

[piedmont]

57. I'm just not going to bother explaining argumentum ad absurdum here

If you honestly believe the government would ban marraige for heterosexuals to keep it away from gays, you'll need one of these:

[donco6]

BINGO! n/t

[BR_Parkway]

61. If the State is going to tell me I can't marry becuase I can't reproduce

then I DO want the law applied to everyone equally. I don't think it will pass, I do think it will point out the obvious discrimination in the court's ruling - and if it passes, I'm totally supportive of it being applied equally to all citizens of the state

[momster]

91. Bingo!

Make those who say 'oh, gay rights have nothing to do with me' or 'the gays want *special* rights' take notice that if a legislature makes a law that discriminates against one group, there is nothing to stop them making another than discriminates against you.

[Katherine Brengle]

40. That is the most beautiful thing I have ever seen. nt

[WA98296]

50. It's sounds totally stupid. I think it will do more harm than good to the cause.

[uppityperson]

52. Glad they got it filed. Good job. Edited to add their website

http://www.wa-doma.org

[Initech]

54. Bwahahahaha!!!! I love it!

:rofl:

[ProudDad]

59. Great!!!

Abbie Hoffman is alive and well and living in Washington state.

Great stuff: :rofl: :rofl: :applause: :applause:

[TransitJohn]

62. That's fucking fantastic

I love it when people are all fired up. It's great.

[raggedcompany]

63. eventually, we're going to win this battle

the writing is on the wall.

good thread, thanks.

[sendero]

64. I love it when..

... the specious, disingenuous, dishonest cover arguments of the bigoted right get turned on their ears.

Bravo!

[marmar]

65. That's great....

"Pool of procreation." :rofl: That's good stuff!

[SalmonChantedEvening]

66. K&R for the sheer joy of reading this

A perfect reply to the small minds fighting to define marriage as something that They Are Comfy With.

[The Doctor.]

68. LOVE IT!

The bullshit always stinks when you apply it across the board.

Let's spread it around.

[truth2power]

72. This is brilliant...

I can't believe some on this thread are taking this literally.

The Gay Rights Activists are using a reductio ad absurdum argument. Great example of guerilla politics.

Liberals should be doing this type of thing more often, instead of trying to use reason to appeal to those who are working out of the reptilian brain.

[maggiegault]

142. I *Don't* Take It Literally

What I fear is that the morons who make the laws will, and think that it is a strapping good idea.

Fundie freaks have been targeting the childfree for a long time because of our choice not to have children. Fundies love to vote. Fundies hate gay people. I'd hate to see this moronic bit of initiative PASS so a couple of people can make a point.

This is America under Bush, people. Are you trying to tell me that it CANNOT happen?

[mondo joe]

148. If it can happen because of America Under Bush, the initiative is not needed.

So it's not relevant.

[maggiegault]

151. You Have Zero Credibility With Me

And this stunt will effectively remove any credibility you have with millions of others who reside in Washington.

This "bitch" says, "good luck with that."

[mondo joe]

152. Sure - insult me rather than deal with the facts. The WA state court could have decreed

this all on its own. The legislature could do it all on its own. No initiative is needed.

The fact is, it's NOT GOING TO PASS.

[maggiegault]

160. And Again, How Can You Be So Sure That It Won't Pass?

Going on your hysterical say-so? No thanks.

The only fact here that I see is that you are exchanging one kind of discrimination for another, and having the gall to justify it as part of your cause.

"It won't pass, it won't pass, it won't pass." That's one hell of a gamble, and I am not willing to see you risk the rights of others in order to secure your own.

"An eye for an eye, and the whole world is blind."

[mondo joe]

171. I don't know what school you went to, but why they taught you that discrimination

means applying the law to everyone equally is a mystery.

You should sue them.

[maggiegault]

205. *Smacking Forehead With Hand Repeatedly*

I give up.

You're right. Okay? You're right.

[mondo joe]

206. I already know I'm right. I want to know why you think applying the same law

equally to everyone is discriminatory.

[maggiegault]

209. Okay, You're Right

The argument is over.

You're right, and you won.

[mondo joe]

212. I won before you touched your keyboard. But you still ought to know that applying

the law equally is the OPPOSITE of discrimination.

As is stands, the law is only applied to a minority - gays. That is what discrimination is.

[maggiegault]

236. Okay, You're Right. You Win, I Lose.

[mondo joe]

243. I appreciate your "concern" over this issue.

[Zhade]

165. Look, I respect the childfree immensely (my two closest friends are cf), but I think you're wrong.

This initiative is being loudly described by activists as satire to point out the hypocritical double-standard of the anti-gay law.

The public will know that this is solely intended by the proponents to make a necessary point.

The citizens have to pass this. Are you telling me they're going to vote against themselves if it applies to them?

Are you telling me fundie nutjobs are a MAJORITY in that state, in a section of the country that has more atheists than any other?

Is this likely to be popular with married heterosexuals? How could it be, when the argument against it in this thread is that passing it would make them pissed at GLBT folk?

You can't have it both ways. Either the people won't pass it, which renders this moot, or they will, and won't be able to blame anyone but themselves for stupidly passing it.

[maggiegault]

203. Right, And Some Of My Best Friends Are Jews And Blacks.

Satire...fine. What country have you been living in since Bush took office?

You're playing fast and loose in a crazy, crazy country with MY rights. And yet you expect me not to be a little upset about it?

I'm not saying that I think it will pass. I don't know that. Unfortunately, you don't either.

What WILL happen is that you will alienate and upset a very large demographic (as mondojoe kindly proved) who traditionally is one of the loudest supporters among straight people for marital rights for ALL people. That is a fact. That will have nothing to do with whether or not it passes. The fact is, you sought to render invalidate childfree/childless marriages as a means of making a point. Satire or no satire, that's simply wrong, and to do so is to resort to fundie freak tactics, which I find as dismaying as I do disappointing.

It's not that I don't get your point, or see the satire of it, or its purpose, or what you are trying to achieve. I am saying that it is a lousy cheap shot at an entire demographic...the MAJORITY of hetero couples in your state...who very much understand what your struggle is and very much understand what it is to experience discrimination (albeit not as severe as what you deal with) at the hands of "society."

Am I angry about this? No, I am not angry. As a childfree adult, I am really surprised by it, though. Primarily because I believe that you greatly underestimate the sentiment John Q. Public holds dear about gay marriage. They may not come right out and say it, but I think this will gain a footing in Washington and would anywhere else in this country. There might not be overt fundamentalist sentiments expressed by your average voter, but you are deluding yourself if you don't think that those who live the White Christian Hetero Two Children Three Mortgages lifestyle would like nothing more than to keep you in the closet. No one is with them in the voting booth, after all. Nobody sees.

[mondo joe]

204. You know nothing about WA state or its voters. The posters here have made clear

their support.

The next time the gay-lobby needs a hysterical know-nothing to weigh in on strategy we'll give you a jingle.

[maggiegault]

211. Oh, So Now You Know Where I Live

And where my family lives, and where I have lived in the past, and where I have worked, etc. etc. etc.

That's too funny.

You're right. Okay? You're right, and I'm wrong. Argument over.

[mondo joe]

214. I didn't say anything about where you've llived, but what you know -- or more

accurately what you don't nkow..

[maggiegault]

240. Okay, You're Right. I'm Stupid, You're Smart. You're Right.

[Zhade]

258. You don't get it at all. This CAN'T pass. People like you are a majority in the state.

The majority will not vote to overturn their own rights, now will they?

I repeat: childfree married couples are a majority in the state. This will not pass. As such, it is even safer than a calculated risk.

I can't explain it any clearer to you. If it were in any way even close to a remote possibility that this would affect people like you, I wouldn't support it.

And kindly retract your bullshit subtle bigot smear. When I say my two closest friends are childfree, that's the truth. They are a lesbian couple who have no desire for children, and probably agree strongly with you. Kindly don't impugn my honesty again by intimating I'm a liar.

[Zhade]

172. Citizens have to pass this. Fundies are not a majority in that state.

NT!

[mondo joe]

183. But childless married couples are the majority.

Just further evidence that this would never pass:


Just FYI -



Family
Type Percent
Married Couple with Children 36.1%
Married Couple without Children 42.7%
Single with Children 13.4%
Single without Children 7.8%

[WI_DEM]

405. Fundies aren't in Wisconsin either but by 59-41 margin statewide outlawed gay marriage

though in my city Madison, a ban was defeated 67-33 percent--the only city in WI to vote against the ban.

[DrunkenMaster]

406. a lot of people don't understand satire

Even here at DU, people would condemn Jonathan Swift for promoting cannibalism....

Stupidity is bi-partisan.

[Clinton_Co_Regulator]

75. I knew this was coming! lol

:kick:

[Catfight]

77. Brilliant! Now my idea is good as well. I think a huge amount of gay

people should get together, strangers, gay men and gay women who openly declare they are intending to marry strangers of the opposite sex for the sole purpose to show the world, that you do not have to even know the other person to get married, and you certainly don't have to love them in America. Then publicly state they will not have sex with their new spouses, that marriage is between a gay man and a gay woman! Just mock the hell out of marriage. Because we all know, marriage is about legally binding yourself to someone you want to legally be bound to, not just between a man and a woman. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Bush started this mess, he needs to continue fighting for his 'crazy base' to keep gay people oppressed, because it exposes the true deep hatred of discrimination on any group of people. It's the new age of discrimination by republicians and religious people.

[mondo joe]

87. I still think we need to establish a gay religion, which includes coming out

and educating others as important sacraments, then use the freedom of religion fundies have exploited to do just those things.

[Catfight]

407. That's an excellent idea...I'm in if you really want to do it. I want to be

a bitchup.

[Pithlet]

88. Brilliant. I love it.

Now every time someone backing DOMA type legislation can be asked if they support this initiative, and they'll either have to answer yes, which they won't, or say no and look like an idiot while they explain how that is different. Show these hypocrites for who they are.

[shireen]

90. i'd love to see the rw neonut christians squirm out of this one!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Nikki Stone1]

93. They could go along with it. And then liberal straights, who might not reproduce, get hurt

Way to alienate the base.

[mondo joe]

96. IT'S NOT GOING TO PASS.

I don't mean to be rude or disrespectful, but this is NOT GOING TO PASS.

[shireen]

100. chill...

you're blowing this out of proportion. Yes, there are a lot of stupid laws still on the books.

But this one is about SEX. There is a snowball's chance in hell that this law will ever pass.

[Burnsey_Koenig]

102. Gay people are a part of that very same base.

And we have been alienated more so than this would do to heterosexuals.

We have been thrown under the bus by the leadership of this party, and in effect, by those who elected those officials.

We are continuously told to wait until we control the political arena, and then we will try to get you your rights. Meanwhile all of the rights we have fought for over the past few decades are being flushed down the toilet (look no further than michigan) because not enough liberals stood up to be counted in the fight for equality.

Maybe the idea of the inequality actually affecting them will wake people up, as it is they loose nothing while we loose our rights and freedoms every day. I'm not willing to "wait" until all of the hard won rights of the past decade are gone before liberals in general finally stand up and say Equality is Equality, not just Equality for those you like or approve of.

[mondo joe]

103. Ka-ching. If I'm being thrown "under the bus" I'm pulling everyone else down there with me.

At least if I can.

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mondo joe]

130. So you say. But if you want to fuck with me and my family, prepare for a fight.

I don't go down easy.

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mondo joe]

150. Heh, but you do appreciate calling another poster a "fundie whack job".

Nice. :-)

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mondo joe]

155. Well. we'll just have to contend with hysteria while engaged in a political battle.

Won't be the first time.

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

168. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ruggerson]

182. So it's okay for gay families to live under assault

but the minute your own family is threatened, you start screaming hysterically at people?

How complacent of you.

Wake up and realize that the gay family next door to you IS REALLY YOUR FAMILY. If they can take THEIR rights away, they can take yours away too.

Which is exactly the political point this measure is trying to make. And obviously succeeding, as it is arousing such ire from people who don't enjoy having their families security threatened.

Welcome to the real world.

[Name removed]

197. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mondo joe]

199. Who you are is clear. If you lived through the Montgomery Bus Boycott would you

have happily sat in the front of the bus, complaining that those boycotters were making things hard for you?

Yes - it's clear.

[Name removed]

218. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mondo joe]

222. Really? Why is second class status different?

And yes, I do win. But it's still fun to see you flail about.

[uppityperson]

224. personal attacks are not part of allowed DU discourse

[maggiegault]

238. You Mean Like MondoJoe Calling Me A Bitch?

Are those the personal attacks of which you speak?

[uppityperson]

242. I didn't read all the deleted posts because they are deleted so can't say why deleted.

someone took my rights away to do that. I also have had my rights taken away to always sit in the front of the bus and now I will lose my marriage over this issue. oh dear. sigh. dramatic pause.

[uppityperson]

244. If someone calls you a bitch, you can hit the alert button.

that will pull up a screen that you can type a message in, if you wish, or else just submit to the moderators for judgement. Saying things like "I disagree with your stand" is ok, things like "you are a bitch" are not. Alert may take a while to work, but everyone can and should use it for personal attacks.

[piedmont]

227. First one to over-the-top meltdown rant loses

That would be you.

[donco6]

250. Well, FINALLY.

The truth comes out at last.

[mondo joe]

251. What's so SWEET about this is her implication that gays don't have it so bad - and yet

the idea that she would be reduced to living at our level is so upsetting.

Hard to figure that one out.

[Name removed]

253. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zhade]

263. It sure does. She apparently doesn't think GLBT folks are discriminated against.

Or maybe just that it's not all that bad, and we should shut the fuck up and accept it.

Well, fuck that. Not going to happen.

[Bluebear]

259. I got your arrogance and delusions of grandeur right here, lady.>>>>>>>>>>>>

Why is it so wrong to compare the two? Wait, let me help.

1. Because blacks can't choose to be black.
2. Because God made Adam and Eve, not Steve. Discrimination against gays is moral, not racial.
3. Because Jesse Jackson, Joseph Lowery, Coretta Scott King, Kweisi Mfume, Marion Barry, and David Dinkins don't speak for the black community when they urge equality for gays.
4. Because you can HIDE being gay, you can't HIDE being black.
5. Because gays are well-off economically and people of color aren't.
6. Because there is a great American history of discrimination against blacks. The same can never be said of gays.


Why is it so, so wrong. Any of the above? Or do you have some more reasons we can add to the list?

"I have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation" - Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a keynote speaker at the 1963 March.

======

How can we of all people, we who know the weight of American oppression better than almost anyone, stand in the path of those who seek simple equality? How can we support writing anyone out of the Constitution when it took us so long to be written in?

And how can we stand with the very people -- social conservatives -- who not so long ago didn't want us in their churches, their schools, their parks or their restaurants? Yet more and more, we act and sound just like them.
We use our Bibles to justify our bigotry, just as they did.

We describe equality as unnatural, just as they did.

We invoke the sanctity of tradition, just as they did. - Leonard Pitts, Jr.

[ruggerson]

305. Close your eyes and imagine Rosie from Will and Grace

uttering your subject line. With her middle finger extended. :0

[Bluebear]

317. :)

[Zhade]

262. We're being denied our rights just as they were (and often continue to be).

So what you're saying here is that you don't really think GLBT folk are discriminated against.

I guess your protestations of support for our rights were just lies.

[Bluebear]

265. She doesn't give a good shit about us. nt

[Zhade]

268. That has indeed become crystal clear.

NT!

[Zhade]

261. Um, noooooo - you'd have the dumbass majority childfree in WA to thank.

If they vote against their own best interest, I'll eat the Brooklyn Bridge.

[donco6]

143. How is it taking rights away from you?

Your rights would just be the same as my rights. The court said there was a public interest in protecting marriage "for procreation." Neither of us are procreating; therefore we cannot marry. Oh wait - it's just ME that cannot get married. You still can.

Yeah, that sounds fair.

[maggiegault]

200. I Never Said That It Was Fair

Please point out where I said that it was fair.

My issue is, was, and always will be that discrimination in the name of discrimination is just that. Discrimination. It is not progress, it is not something to be lauded, and it really isn't something that deserves the attention that it is receiving. It's a cheap stunt, plain and simple, and will only hurt your cause with those who have traditionally fought long and hard for your rights.

Childless/childfree adults can marry, if they are straight. Correct. However, we are denied many things because we opt not to have children, or worse yet, cannot have them. For you to imply that you are the only ones who have any sort of a struggle at the hands of the status quo only proves how linear thinking you are about this matter.

You may think that you are very clever, but you are dealing with either childfree people, who will be hurt by what you are proposing, or religious morons, who will cheer because you have finally seen the light and agree with them, or John Q. Public, who could give a damn, but do not like being condescended to (and this scheme is incredibly condescending).

Not backing down from this one. You are hurting your cause with this stunt.

[mondo joe]

201. Right - argue for unequal law.

What makes you think treating all people equally is discriminatory?

[maggiegault]

208. Taking Away The Rights Of Anyone

In order to further your own agenda is discrimination in one of its worst forms.

It's not borne of hatred or stupidity or religious dogma. It's calculated and designed to be cruel.

[uppityperson]

213. taking away my right to opress someone is discrimination?

taking away my right to always sit in front of the bus is wrong?

[mondo joe]

216. This isn't removing rights -- it's applying the same rights for everyone. NT

[uppityperson]

210. This issue is to point the hypocrisy in the law regarding marriage.

It's working, isn't it?

[donco6]

215. No kidding!

All these people running around with their hair afire, simply because someone is being hung by their own petard! It's all quite ridiculous, really.

[mondo joe]

217. You have to wonder where they'd be in the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Complaining

that the boycott is inconveniencing them, no doubt.

[Name removed]

220. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[donco6]

225. Or the Holocaust - don't forget the Holocaust

Nice try - no ceegar.

[mondo joe]

226. Why? Second class legal status is still second class. But now I'm beginning to understand your

"position".

[Bluebear]

252. SLOOOOOOOWLY I TURNED.....................

Somebody stop me, please.

[donco6]

254. NO! Bluebear NO! It's not worth it!

Just . . . walk . . . away . . .

Nah, on second thought tear her a new one.

[LostinVA]

397. Damn, I wish I'd seen this thread last night

So many deleted messages.

[uppityperson]

255. Why?

[Bluebear]

257. .

.

[Zhade]

264. So, you don't support the rights we're being denied.

Explain how our plight is different. Do GLBT folk not get killed for being born as we are? Not face housing, work, insurance, hospital, and a thousand other little discriminations?

What's so very wrong is lying about your support for our rights, while stating you really don't think we have it all that bad. Clearly, you don't support us. At all.

And you've been exposed.

[donco6]

223. "It's not helping your cause!"

Oh yeah, I can just hear it now. :eyes:

[Bluebear]

246. "It's making us LOOK BAD!"

:scared:

[donco6]

219. Oh bosh.

You're simply upset because your own hypocrisy is spitting in your face. Wiggle all you might, there's no escaping this airtight logic: If marriage is to be protected for the purpose of procreation, as the court ruled, then it should be protected for those who are procreating . . . and only those who are procreating.

Or . . . the right wing nutjobs (who post arguments oddly similar to yours . . . ) simply must face their two-faced approach to the issue and find themselves unmasked.

[mondo joe]

228. It's weird to see someone argue for unequal treatment under the law in a holier-than-thou

way.

[donco6]

235. It's actually rather fascinating.

A true and classic case of "doublethink".

"I believe you are oppressed, but don't appeal to your oppression for relief".

"I believe you should have equal rights, but don't work toward obtaining them."

"It's bad that you're being treated unfairly, but don't believe for a moment that life is fair."

I'm having a time just keeping my head from spinning completely off.

[mondo joe]

247. "It is discriminatory to expect the same laws you live under to apply to me as well!"

[uppityperson]

248. It's not fair to emperil my marriage just because you want equal treatment.

There should only be equal treatment that I think is right because otherwise it is discriminatory and makes you look bad.

[donco6]

249. Zing - POP! OK, now you've done it. n/t

[maggiegault]

230. Are You KIDDING Me?

You obviously are capable of your own worldview and only your worldview.

Here's an idea for you: be a childfree woman in a heavily red state with primarily Catholic hospitals and healthcare providers and find someone to give you a tubal ligation.

It isn't hypocrisy to point out that the ludicrous ruling is actually more of an insult to people like ME than it is to people like YOU. Oh, sure, it's an insult to you all right, but what it is saying primarily is that hetero people just aren't married unless they have kids. All of us who don't have them due to whatever reason can just rot. (Or is it only your own pain, your own struggle, that matters here?)

And how do you fight the good fight? By parroting their ridiculous bigotry back to them, in essence giving it validity (at least in their own minds), and rubbing the salt in our wounds even further.

You say it won't pass. You don't know that for certain. You can't. It's not possible to know something like that.

So, in order to "further the cause," you are potentially ruining millions of marriages and lives.

How very selfish of you.

How very arrogant of you, to play God that way.

And before you resort to the straw man argument of "well, you big bad hetero people make the laws," allow me to point out to you that I didn't. However, if on the slight chance that this passes, a direct correlation can and will be made between the loss of marital status for millions of adults and your need to play God with our lives in the name of "progress."

In essence, causing the same pain that you yourself have felt your entire lives. Tell me again how you are any better?

[uppityperson]

232. Being in a childless marriage, I don't feel at all threatened or insulted by this.

I support it wholeheartedly. If marriage is defined to be for the purpose of procreating, then those who cannot procreate cannot be married. So, change the ruling by pointing out the facility therein. That is what this is saying.

How is applying the law equally discriminatory? You discriminate against my ability to always sit at the front of the bus by ruling segregated buses are illegal. Is this bad? No. Neither is what this measure is proposing.

[donco6]

233. Honey, there is no way in hell this would pass anywhere.

And yes, I know that for certain. So you can relax yourself on that one.

Secondly, I'm sorry you are offended by the ruling. Poor thing. And off you go to your marriage and your benefits, none of which are in any possible jeopardy. All the while arguing against our use of a simple jurisprudential mockery - the true nature of which seems to escape you entirely.

And trust me, I would never stoop so low as to fall upon the tired hollow "oppression" argument. After all, I so RARELY even get the opportunity to "play god". I just might jolly well enjoy it more than I'd imagined.

[mondo joe]

239. Laws should apply equally to all, on principle. Forgive me if that disrupts your privileged

lifestyle.

If someone else was reduced to second class status I wouldn't WANT to be superior to them under the law.

[Bluebear]

241. Why are you so concerned and troubled by this?

You actually think this will pass? You actually think this is not meant to highlight the inequality towards gay and lesbians? Why are you in such a lather?

[mondo joe]

245. Some people are just concerned.

[Zhade]

267. You don't know that it was aimed at you.

Considering all the anti-gay rhetoric before it passed, guess what - IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU.

Talk about selfish - wanting to own the bigotry that was aimed at us and is hurting us every day, while you whine about something that has maybe a .01% chance of passing, all while pretending you care about our rights.

We know you don't. Your comments above prove it. You can give it up - we see right through you.

[ima_sinnic]

380. unbelievable! so hysterically against challenging a disciminatory law

AS IF the multitude of childless, old, sterile, career-minded voters of Washington State would pass this law! The absurdity is overwhelmingly obvious, and it is brilliant.

I think ms. wadded-panties is just worried that it WILL expose the complete lack of substance in the argument that "marriage" is "for procreation only" and there will be nothing left to deny equal rights of marriage to gays.

what was the bit upthread that was deleted but copied into someone else's post, something about gays "chose" their way of life--? that said it all right there. I think someone has a very personal interest in seeing that gays maintain their second-class status. HER marriage will be "ruined" if gays' marriages are treated equally to hers, methinks.

[donco6]

125. Yes - and welcome Burnsey_Koenig. n/t

[maggiegault]

127. And By Getting Your "Rights"

You will effectively remove the rights of others.

Equality IS equality. Now, please tell me again, how this is "equality" for heterosexual childfree married people?

You have been thrown under the bus by the party leadership. I am being thrown under the bus by you.

[mondo joe]

133. How is it equality? Simple:

The WA State Court denied marriage to a select population claiming it exists for procreation only.

Applying that standard to EVERYONE makes it equal.

[maggiegault]

145. And So, In Other Words...

..."If I can't have it, by gum, I'll take it away from decent people who do have it, decent people who, incidentally, are 100% on my side anyway, and vote and act accordingly!"

Seriously, who do you think you are penalizing with this?

The fundies will just laugh in your face and use it as justification for their bigotry against you.

And...trust me on this one...you will PISS OFF a HUGE segment of the population of Washington with this stunt. There are millions of childfree people in this country, many of them in the "progressive" state of Washington.

[mondo joe]

146. Who do I think I'm penalizing? No one.

No one will be penalized.

[donco6]

147. No - rather: It must be applied equally, if at all. n/t

[yewberry]

159. Nobody is getting penalized by anything.

This is a voter initiative. You seriously think that the people of Washington are going to pass this? Uh, no. We won't. It's utterly unconstitutional on its face. No one is going to have their rights taken away from them--and it illustrates brilliantly the hypocrisy of the ruling by the WA Supreme Court.

Incidentally, there are lots and lots of "decent people" being denied rights that I have and you have.

[Zhade]

179. You can't have it both ways. If so many people would be angered by it passing...

...IT WON'T PASS.

Your argument about how many people it would piss off destroys your argument that it will pass, as the citizens themselves are the ones who will decide this.

[Guaranteed]

229. It's just that if you're going to apply a stupid principle, you ought to apply it fairly.

That's fundamental to our justice system. Everyone under the stupid laws equally.

[donco6]

237. LOL!

That sounds like a line from Monty Python.

[Zhade]

319. THEY ARE RIGHTS. We are being denied them.

So why put the word in quotes - unless you don't support equal rights for all, as we've already seen by your "don't compare your plight to blacks" (now deleted) bullshit remarks.

[mondo joe]

322. Don't you see? They are rights when denied to her. But when denied to us they're "rights".

[Pithlet]

104. If there were a significant chance of it passing, you might have a point.

But, even then, if worse case scenario happened, and I somehow lost my rights to marry without procreating, I'd still blame the nuts who pushed their bigoted agenda at all costs to begin with. No, the intent of this isn't to actually strip people of their rights, but to pick up the Religious Right's hypocritical, illogical stance on this issue, and hold it up to the light for all to see. I fully support them in this. I'm not going to tell them to back down on the extremely slim to none chance that this would actually be successful. I'm not standing in their way.

[donco6]

124. That's preposterous.

And I'm a former fundie nutjob myself. I can certify there's no way they would support this. They have their own skeletons to hide.

As far as alienating the base - I'd say you're in the small minority here who doesn't get the point of the idea, and isn't amused as hell.

[Tyo]

141. You have nothing to worry about

No one has ever gone broke betting on the hypocrisy of the Fundies. There is no way they will support this. No law that seriously inconveniences heterosexuals in terms of what they do or don't do in the bedroom will ever pass. It's going to be interesting to watch the Fundies squirm at having their bluff called.

[donco6]

144. Yes. I'm dying to see what convoluted argument they'll . . .

. . . come up with.

[Tyo]

195. My bet is that the stupid ones will just foam and sputter

Others might fall back on the "sex is primarily for procreation" argument with an added spin. They would bring God front and center and say that it is up to Him, not us, whether or not pregnancy results from a given roll in the hay. Since we have no control over this it is wrong to try to impose a timetable on it.

I mean it might be His will to deny children to a couple period even though they would seem to be physically capable of producing them. As for infertility or old age, the very act of heterosexual intercourse is a reflection and an acknowledgment of its divinely ordained procreative purpose and is therefore valid and acceptable. Long story short, the three-year thing is an infringement on God's prerogative, and and a corruption of the institution of Holy Matrimony.

Is that convoluted enough? :P I think it is similar to the position of the Catholic Church in some respects and they are no slouches at coming up with stuff like this. :7

[donco6]

231. Oh yeah. That probably fills the bill.

I'd bet that's pretty close to what they'll come up with eventually. Along with a smug chuckle at the "ridiculousness of our claim".

[Missy Vixen]

185. How exactly does this "hurt" my husband and I?

You seem to forget that it would be simple for us to drive to Portland, OR, Boise, ID or fly to Las Vegas, and remarry in another state if our marriage was annulled in Washington State due to our lack of progeny. My husband and I already discussed the fact we'd like to be the first test case if the initiative passes. We're over 21. There's nothing that would prevent us from remarrying, whereas those we know who are gay DO NOT have even rudimentary legal protections and recognization of their relationships, and WILL NOT unless someone dares to stand up.

How long do gay life partners have to sit in the back of the bus before those of us who believe that they should have the legal and social protections of marriage will stand up for them, and put ourselves (and the Sanctity of Marriage, which I'm sure many would agree with me -- what sanctity?) on the line to do so?

Julie

[Zhade]

188. Thank you Julie! Great response!

We appreciate your support. :)

[Missy Vixen]

266. It's my duty as a human and as an American

When one of us is oppressed, we all are...

Julie

[Tyo]

269. Let me add my thanks

With you and people like you at our side we'll get there one of these days!

[Missy Vixen]

339. As mentalsolstice said,

No thanks is necessary. (I'm very touched you said it, though.) This is something that should have happened long ago.

I'm getting tired of hearing "it's not time yet". WHEN will it be time to fight for others to simply have their relationships be recognized by the law and by society?

Julie

[Kber]

111. Add a clause making birthcontrol illegal for married couples

Keep it legal for single folks, mind you, but married folks shouldn't be having sex without the intent to procreate.

[Pithlet]

194. That's something they'd actually love to see happen.

It wouldn't serve to point out what hypocrites they are if they'll actually pounce on it. I think they have the right idea making it explicitly about the actual right to marry, and points out their hypocrisy nicely.

[Kber]

395. Yep - linking gay marriage to

1) makiing adultry illegal
2) making birthcontrol illegal
3) making divorce illegal

isn't hyporitical at all. If you argue for one, you can argue for all. It's the folks who want to pick and choose only those items that don't affect them personally that are the hyprocrites.

For what it's worth, James Dobson has been remarkably consistant on the issue. I just think most people haven't followed his arguments to their logical conclusion even though he hasn't been shy about pointing them out to people.

[Doctor Panacea]

113. Not good

This is the kind of thing that makes mainstream America hate liberals and progressives. We are not doing ourselves any favors by supporting legislation like this.

[WillyT]

114. Beautiful !!! - K & R !!!

I LOVE it!!!

:bounce::rofl::bounce:

:applause::kick::applause:

[varun]

115. I support this initiative

It should also invalidate marriages where the woman has reached menopause.

No children = no marriage!

My next bumper sticker

[AnnieBW]

126. Every Sperm Is Sacred!

Looks like my "husband" and I will be filing separately this year, since we're both unable to procreate.

I wonder, does this cover adoption, too?

[Cobalt Violet]

158. A law long over due. n/t

[Heathen57]

162. Wonderful! I am going to post the link

on a couple of forums that are full of religious bible-beating morons and see what kind of excuses that they can come up with.

This might be very interesting, even though I am sure it has no chance of passing. Too many hetero but childless couples in the state to allow it on the books.

Heathen-

[Zhade]

184. Please report back with the juicy bits, and welcome to DU!

NT!

[Heathen57]

393. Thanks for the welcome, and it was interesting

just what they responded. For the most part, the bible-beaters just couldn't get their heads around the idea that it was just leveling the playing field.

The members of the RCC that frequent there were in agreement. I was appalled, but also not surprised. The hardest thing is convincing them that their hypocrisy is transparent for anyone not as deluded as they are.

All in all, it made for a wonderful topic. I even got called a few new names in addition to the usual ones. :eyes:

Heathen-

[ruggerson]

175. It's about fucking time n/t

[xultar]

193. Fucking BRILLIANT idea!

[Guaranteed]

202. That's classic. nt

[mentalsolstice]

271. I would risk the legal status of my marriage...

...to stand with my brothers and sisters for equality. We knew we would not be procreating when we got married (we had already chosen not to very early in our relationship, and then it was determined that a hysterectomy was necessary a few months before our wedding date). I would have no problem at all with abdicating the legal status of our marriage to prove the illogical reasoning of the WA Sup.Ct.

[Bluebear]

277. Love and thanks to you. nt

[mentalsolstice]

293. No thanks needed...

...but is accepted. We dated for three years, and then lived together for three years before we married. And we married primarily because we realized the legal and societal advantages we would gain by doing so. So we took advantage of the rights given to us by law. However, has that piece of paper really changed our love for one another, before or after? Not a bit! So I would put it on the line, because I know it would not really change the internal machinations of our relationship. However, I'm fully aware of the external advantages we've gained, and how all those factors, such as property rights, health care rights, etc., can really add up so we can get by in our society.

No law can really touch the inner core of our intimate relationship with another person, but it can make it much easier for us to walk amongst the rest of our brothers and sisters!

[Zhade]

325. Thank you. Seriously. That means a LOT.

Gonna make me cry, you are!

[Missy Vixen]

337. We're with you, mentalsolstice

>I would have no problem at all with abdicating the legal status of our marriage to prove the illogical reasoning of the WA Sup.Ct.<

I have three words for the Washington Supreme Court: Bring. It. ON.

I'm thinking that if the initiative comes close to being ratified as law, there will be some seriously panicky people in Washington State government, one of which is our state representative. He's a great Democrat, an advocate for his constituency, and he and his wife do not have children by choice, either.

Julie

[LostinVA]

396. Thank you, MS!

[enigmatic]

415. me too

My wife and I are child-free, and this is a no-brainer for me. I'd gladly give up my right of marriage for this, but it's never going to pass anyway.

[mentalsolstice]

417. It takes so little to get married

It shames me that all we had to do was meet at the courthouse over our lunch hour, obtain a piece of paper, and poof we were accorded all kinds of legal rights, that our gay friends, who have had longer-standing relationships than my spouse and I, cannot enjoy. In my perfect world, we would ALL be granted civil unions as I feel that the state cannot and should not define a marriage. That's up to the individuals.

[krispos42]

358. Gave it 5 stars, K&R

Now, can they make it retroactive about a decade and apply to South Dakota?

[Jonathan50]

400. Heterosexual married male here, I support you completely

Our only child is 27 years old so we wouldn't pass a three year test.

I think it's a great idea.

It might even better if it passed. Let the bigots get a little of their own medicine and see if they like how it tastes.

It reminds me of a HUGE flamewar I got into a few years ago on an atheist's board. I was using the same tactics as you to call for making alcohol illegal using the justification that if cannabis is illegal because it is a mind altering substance then alcohol should be illegal because it is a mind altering substance.

Wow, did I get some nasty and irrational replies that were really out of character for the board, which was normally polite and very rational. Kind of like you are getting here.

People really hate it when you try to make them live under the rules that they made for others.

[slackmaster]

402. Out-stupiding the competition is certainly one strategy

I don't think this will get anywhere.

[Jonathan50]

403. It will certainly provoke debate

I don't think there is any doubt that the initiative will provoke a debate about whether or not marriage is all about reproduction.

That is the intent of those introducing the initiative so I think they will get exactly what they want.

To call something stupid without introducing any evidence or argument as to why you think it is stupid is err... Well you get the point.

[slackmaster]

404. Blatantly unconstitutional = stupid

Welcome to DU.

[DrunkenMaster]

408. it's called satire

Jeesh.

[uppityperson]

416. Provoking debate = Not stupid.

Calling the WA Supreme Court on their ruling also = not stupid. Supreme court ruled marriage is for the purpose of procreating. Should we just let that stand? This is 1 way to call them on it.

[Jonathan50]

418. Thanks slackmaster, glad to be here. n/t

[Nicole]

411. Beat them at their own game.

What a brilliant strategy. :applause:

[Nicole]

412. Beat them at their own game.

What a brilliant strategy. :applause:

[MiniMe]

413. Well, I had a hysterectomy, guess I couldn't get married in Washington

God forbid a man or woman couldn't have children for whatever reason.

[Lex]

420. kick

[orleans]

423. great thread. i missed this one and i'm glad it was kicked for me to see it

i think i'll send them a little donation too. "defense of marriage alliance" -- great name!