Feb 6


Turn about is fair play?

by Terry 06 February 2007


Last year, the Washington Supreme Court came down with an affirming decision on the state’s same sex marriage ban, saying that the state has a legitimate interest in limiting marriage to those capable of having and raising children together. Taking that idea to it’s logical conclusion is the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, which hopes to point out the absurdity of that reasoning by started an initiative drive codify it into law.

Initiative 957, The Defense of Marriage Act, 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.

I can already hear the squeals of outrage. Let’s hope this forces a show down over the definition of marriage and rattles a few cages on the Washington Supreme Court.

Via Daily Dose of Queer

Tagged: >

7 Comments

7 Responses to “Turn about is fair play?”

  1. ***Dave Does the Blog on February 7th, 2007 7:36 am
  2. Burrow on February 7th, 2007 11:20 am

    WTF? I can’t even start to count the ways in which that is screwed up. What about heterosexual couples that are infertile or who, god forbid, don’t want to procreate?  (Quote)

  3. Terry on February 7th, 2007 11:29 am

    Burrow, they really aren’t trying to take away anyone’s right to marry, or to force them to have kids. The whole point is to force the WA legislature and the WA Supreme Court to acknowledge that the ruling was screwed up, and admit that procreation ability is not a basis on which to define marriage. (That is the reason the court gave for approving the law banning same sex marriage.) What they really want is to have that decision overturned, and they’re using hyperbole to prove their point. If it were to pass (which it won’t – it won’t even make the ballot), the court would be forced to rule on it, undercutting the anti same sex marriage decision.  (Quote)

  4. T.G. Scott on February 8th, 2007 8:11 am

    I think it’s a frivolous waste of time. I ask you, where will it end? What’s next? Why shouldn’t someone be allowed to marry a goat next?  (Quote)

  5. Terry on February 8th, 2007 9:20 am

    Tammy, I don’t think it’s fair to compare a loving, committed relationship between 2 adults to bestiality. I fully support the right of all people, regardless of orientation, to marry and have that partnership recognized legally.  (Quote)

  6. Ahistoricality on February 8th, 2007 1:19 pm

    The bestiality thing is so easy: Goats can’t give informed consent. They rarely live long enough to be considered adults, anyway, so statutory rape would apply.

    The only problem I have with the WA initiative is a tactical one: the likelihood that it will succeed and force the courts to face their hypocrisy is quite low, and forcing the electorate to face their hypocrisy is nearly impossible….  (Quote)

  7. Terry on February 8th, 2007 3:24 pm

    You’re right, A, that the odds on this are very long. If presented with the petition I’ll sign it, though, on the chance that it might make some difference. It’s a good sign that the Seattle PI has picked up the story, though. Maybe the press can do what the initiative probably can’t.  (Quote)

Leave a Reply

Terry likes gravitars to personalize comments. Don't have one? Make one at gravatar.com!