"Defense of Marriage" initiative filed in Washington State

[TechBear]

I think this one might actually be worthy of the name: the group, the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance (WA-DOMA) wants to get the state supreme court to overturn last year's validation of the state's defense of marriage act by putting the court's ruling into law. First up: make procreation a requirement for all marriages in the state. :weee:

Their website, the text of the initiative and other information is available at their website: http://www.wa-doma.org

[tpdncr4christ]

I am confused... these people say they want to change it so any one who has sex, and gets pregnant, is there fore married with their partner. So if you rape someone, and they have your baby... your married? And then they say if you can't have kids within three years of being married it doesn't count and gets annuled?

But then they say its absurd, and they know its absurd and they want the laws to be voted unconstitutional... I don't get it. What is their goal? Without the crap involved...

Will they help us or hurt us?

[Joe Brummer]

I think the goal is to make a point! I think the debate, conversation and dialog about marriage that stem from things like this is well.....priceless.

[TechBear]

I am confused... these people say they want to change it so any one who has sex, and gets pregnant, is there fore married with their partner. So if you rape someone, and they have your baby... your married? And then they say if you can't have kids within three years of being married it doesn't count and gets annuled?

Those initiatives are being put out as possibilities that reflect the actual wording of the court decision being mocked. Whether or not they intend to actually propose them, I don't know.

But then they say its absurd, and they know its absurd and they want the laws to be voted unconstitutional... I don't get it. What is their goal? Without the crap involved...

Will they help us or hurt us?

The goal seems to be to bring public attention to the hypocricy of the court's ruling. If there is a "legitimate state interest" in keeping marriage for the sole purpose of having and raising children, and if same-sex couples can therefore be prohibited from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that ALL couples that can not have children together must likewise be prohibited from marriage. Their point seems to be political action via satire; "The Colbert Report" goes to the ballot. At least, that's how I am reading it.

If it gets people thinking about equal marriage and pondering the rationale as to why some people are so against it, I think it will help.

[markrsmith83]

I've been a straight gay rights supporter for years.

This move just pisses me off.

My wife and I have chosen not to have children. This would affect us directly, if we lived in Washington.

It can't be an intelligent move for the gay rights community to attack their own supporters.

[Zerbie]

I think their goal was to "force" people to make the connection between a ridiculous proposition like this and the "marriage" amendments that scapegoat gay couples. It pissed me off too - my thought was upon reading this, that if it actually passed (it won't, but if) then my husband and I had better never travel through WA state.

The problem with a move like this, I believe, is that it could offend or upset those who are already supporters of the movement, without prompting those who are not supporters to really see the parallel between this dumb thing and the other dumb things (by which I mean, the marriage amendments.) I don't think that throwing more ridiculous garbage onto ballots is at all the way to go about stopping the tide of anti-domestic partner initiatives. It just crowds the issue with another ridiculous proposition.

[Lydia]

I don't think that throwing more ridiculous garbage onto ballots is at all the way to go about stopping the tide of anti-domestic partner initiatives. It just crowds the issue with another ridiculous proposition.

I agree. Most people aren't going to get it.

[TigerXero]

I guess someone beat me to posting the topic, but here's an article about what's going on:

Proposal Would Require Straights To Have Kids Or Marriages Would Be Voided

(Olympia, Washington) Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced a ballot measure that would require heterosexual couples to have a child within three years or have their marriages annulled.

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance acknowledged on its Web site that the initiative was "absurd" but hoped the idea prompts "discussion about the many misguided assumptions" underlying a state Supreme Court ruling that upheld a ban on same-sex marriage.

The measure would require couples to prove they can have children to get a marriage license. Couples who do not have children within three years could have their marriages annulled.

All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized," making those couples ineligible for marriage benefits.

The paperwork for the measure was submitted last month. Supporters must gather at least 224,800 signatures by July 6 to put it on the November ballot.

The group said the proposal was aimed at "social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation."

Cheryl Haskins, executive director of Allies for Marriage and Children, said opponents of same-sex marriage want only to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

"Some of those unions produce children and some of them don't," she said.

©365Gay.com 2007

[ladyinred]

Personally I didn't know having children was a prerequisite for marriage. Isn't that discrimination against childless couples.. Not everyone who is married wants to have children. That's like saying that in order to be considered married you must have children, to qualify. It's like coercion, forcing married couples to have children. That definitely would not work in favor of married couples at all.(or domestic partnerships) To me having a child should be left up to the couple, not the courts...

[ladyinred]

Hey Mark, I can see your point. And I agree.

[ladyinred]

Plus it also unfairly places childless couples under attack. Knowing the religious right , they'd probably want to come up with a similar idea ,after all marriage is soley based on having children in their mind. Not good for our cause if we unfairly bring childless couples into this fight.

[ladyinred]

Also another thing to consider, what if there were the possibility this was passed. It would work to serve the religious right agenda rather than our own..Then we might have bigger battles to fight down the line. I don't get the logic behind something like this.. it seems like a backward effort on the part of proponents of gay marriage..I think because of a measure like this, even if absurd ,were passed, we'd really be excluded from parental rights.The thing is many people may not get that this is an absurd proposition and many of the more radical or conservative might actually go for it.. which would cause the whole thing to backfire on us.