Defense of Marriage Initiative Accepted by Sec. of State

[The Sushi Bandit]

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

If passed by Washington voters, the Defense of Marriage Initiative would:

add the phrase, “who are capable of having children with one another” to the legal definition of marriage;
require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;
require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as “unrecognized;”
establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and
make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits.


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 unconstitutional 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.

[misternormal]

1. So people who marry in WA...

... have to have children within 3 years or have their marriage annulled???

That is bullshit !!!!

Thank the Gods I don't live there. :headbang:

[karlrschneider]

3. I think you may be missing the point of this.

:D

[Tom Joad]

4. First, this is only accepted to gather signatures for ballot,

which means that this is just a first step. I don't even know if people are really going to gather sigs for it, but the whole thing is just for educational purposes only, not a serious attempt to make into law. (prohibiting some kinds of marriages is just plain foolish)
Before it becomes law, it will have to be approved by a majority of voters. And since no one hardly anyone wants such a law, especially the ones who brought it to the Sec of State of WA, that does not seem likely to happen.

The point is that people should not restrict marriage.

[Warpy]

2. Somebody needs to point out to them

that by that provision, if they hadn't had children with those trophy wives, their marriages would be invalid. Also invalid would be marriages that occurred when the couples have been found to be infertile. Old folks would also be at risk, no more finding love a second time for widows over 45.

Sickening bastards have missed the whole point, haven't they?

[Ian David]

5. There will probably be enough idiots who vote for this without actually reading it.

I hope it passes!

[Tom Joad]

6. It's not on the ballot yet...

and getting something on the ballot takes much commitment (usually paid sig gatherers)... and the "backers" of this don't want this to pass...

[karlrschneider]

7. Maybe not but just imagine the chaos if it DID!

;-)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Wow! It's a good thing my wife and I got hitched in California before moving to WA.

26 years ago. We decided we didn't want kids. I guess we would have to live in sin if the idiot law were enacted and retroactive.

[misternormal]

9. It just gets my goat...

... that someone would sit around and think this shit up.

If I read this right, the WDOMA, wants to have this passed so that the supreme court will rule on it and deem it unconstitutional, so that those opposing same-sex marriage will have to eat crow, and the supporters of such a thing might be exposed?

A dangerous game of russian roulette with the hearts and emotions of a lot of people, whether it will garner enough signatures to be placed on the ballot or not.

This is just plain stupid.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

10. Personally, I Like It.

I think it is quite witty and a brilliant smack to the faces of those on the SC there. I hadn't known about this case until this legislation gained attention, and I find myself still in awe that the SC had the gall to issue an opinion on such ridiculous grounds.

Go get em!

[The Sushi Bandit]

[The Sushi Bandit]

11. .

[AnOhioan]

12. It will never become law, it is not intended too.

This is an attempt by good people to raise the issue of equality in marriage in the public consciousness. What better way to do it than to craft an act that, if passed, would invalidate thousands or Washington State marriages? Watch as the rightwingers heads explode as they realize the end result of their anti-gay and lesbian bigotry.