This has my support, my signature if I find someone canvassing for signatures, and my vote if it should actually make it to the ballot: the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance‘s Initiative 957.
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.
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.
I’m in. Of course, other people aren’t so excited…
Cheryl Haskins, executive director of Allies for Marriage & Children, agreed with [I-957 filer Gregory] Gadow’s group on at least one point about the initiative: “It’s absurd,” she said.
Haskins said opponents of same-sex marriage “have never said that the sole purpose of marriage is procreation.”
“When we talk about defending the institution of marriage, we’re talking about the union of a man and a woman,” she said. “Some of those unions produce children and some of them don’t.”
With I-957, “you’re dictating people’s choices in a way that is utterly ridiculous,” she said.
Which, of course, is the point.
The [Washington State Supreme Court majority] opinion [upholding Washington’s ban on same-sex marriage] written by Justice Barbara Madsen concluded that “limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the state’s interests in procreation and encouraging families with a mother and father and children biologically related to both.”
Gadow said the argument is unfair when you’re dealing with same-sex couples who are unable to have children together.
“What we are trying to do is display the discrimination that is at the heart of last year’s ruling,” he said.
I’d add that the language as written is also unfair to heterosexual couples who can’t (or for any reason prefer not to) have children, hetero- or homosexual couples who adopt, or any other combination or situation you can come up with that’s not the husband, wife, and two point five children scenario. I was disgusted with the ruling them, I still am, and I’m quite amused by I-957’s approach to poking at the issue.
Sign me up!
This is sheer lunacy. But it is not unexpected.
The Bible clearly prophesied that a Satanic doctrine would attempt to ban marriage.
“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
“Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
“FORBIDDING TO MARRY, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the TRUTH” (1st Timothy 4:1-3).
The “logic” of this idea is, admittedly, clever. Sodomites figure that no judge in this country would have the guts to come out and say that:
1) “Marriage” is a genetic term, and is therefore possible only to a heterosexual couple, regardless of whether certain individuals are capable of conception or not”;
2) By that definition, “marriage” is 100% impossible between Sodomites, and therefore there can be no such “right”; and
3) Sodomites cannot alter the laws of God with mere legislation.
Alas, no judge has the guts to say that.
Therefore, the Sodomites will argue this way: “Since SOME heterosexual couples cannot conceive; and since NO Sodomite couples can conceive, therefore ‘marriage’ cannot include genetics by definition.
“Thus, WE must re-define ‘marriage’ as nothing more than ‘shacking up, for the sake of various sex acts,’ and that WE have the ‘right’ to do so.
“Conclusion: if WE are not granted these ‘rights,’ by OUR definition, then ‘marriage’ must be BANNED FOR ALL.”
You’ll never get away with this.
I am straight and heard about I-957 on Howard Stern’s New’s with Robin who supports gay marriage along almost everyone else on the show and so do I. I hope this finally makes people think!!
I am a student of Seattle Central Community College and talked with CNN this morning outside my school. A man who I don’t think was affiliated with CNN in anyway approached me with a pen and a petition board on I-957 and I gladly signed. CNN asked my why I signed and what I think of I-957. I think the idea that marriage is for the sole purpose of procreation is wrong and just plain silly! I-957 is a smart way to go about this issue. Go in reverse and show them how ridiculous it it. Pass this initiative and watch the supreme court strike it down with the gavel.
My husband and I have 3 dogs and two cats. Doesn’t that count as children?
This has got to be a joke! What about the people who medically can’t have children? Whose right is it to impose upon ANYone to reproduce? Can’t people just devote their lives to each other? Isn’t THAT the sanctity of marriage? The world is plenty overpopulated as it is. I don’t need some crazy man telling me when my husband and I are ready to add another family member. Absolute nazism.
Rachel:
“Can’t people just devote their lives to each other? Isn’t THAT the sanctity of marriage?” This is precisely the point the initiative authors are trying to get you to see. The outrage you feel when this initiative attacks your marriage is EXACTLY!!! how gays feel when told they can’t marry.
You should be thankful that this is a thought-provoking initiative only that really isn’t intended to have a chance. Be thankful that you CAN get married legally.
I rather government and religions keeping their hand off of my private lives. It is NONE of its business to tell me to do with our lives. I respect my second son for being married for over 6 years without children as long as they have wonderful, lovable relationship. Remember, religions and state SHOULD keep separate.
I have an honest problem with this. I do not live in Washington, however this hits home for me. I am a married individual that is unable to have children due to the fact that I had a medical condition that forced me to have a hysterectomy at the young age of 23. If I had not had that prodecure I would not be alive. How could you justify this in my situation? You are saying I am lesser of a person because I cannot have children. What would you do in that situation? Would you make me divorce my husband whom I love dearly and whom understood when we married that I could not have children. I was not a choice I wanted to make, I had not choice and I feel that this would punish people like me. I hope you will see that view from my side and people like me that this law makes no sense and would destroy the lives of thousands if not millions of people.
Dawn and Rachel and future people who will leave posts like theirs,
The whole point is that the ruling is not fair to you. Yes, we probably are overpopulated. Yes, some married people don’t want children. Yes, some married people are physically unable to have children even if they do want them. It’s not your fault that you don’t have children (nor is it even a bad thing for the country that you don’t), but under the current rules you were still allowed to get married in the first place, whereas homosexuals were not. Cliff mentions that his son has been married without children for 6 years and the government shouldn’t interfere in his private life. Yes, I agree. And the government should get out of the private lives of gays, too. If you’re so angry that a measure like this could exist (and don’t worry, there is a zero percent chance it could ever pass), then you should be angry that gay people are not allowed to get married.
My own marriage would be annulled if this measure passed, but I would still vote for it if I lived in Washington.
It’s not serious. The point of this initiative is to draw attention to how absurd it is to define marriage in this way. It’s merely a response to those who oppose gay marriages by saying that marriage is a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation.
It is an ingenious way to get under the skin of the fascist GOP and Christian Right.
If enough signatures are gathered, it will surely lead to a debate and to the realization that the current ruling is sophomoric.
I seriuosly think forcing people who should not be having children in the first place is a good idea. : ) I understand what is trying to be done, but isn’t there another way to do this?
I’m very glad to see that there are a few people who will state that they are troubled by I-957. That’s good. That’s what the initiative is supposed to provoke.
Are fair minded people living in a republic governed by a constitution we have to have reasons whenever we make a new law that would favor one group over all others, or disfavor one group over all others.
Washington State’s defense of marriage act limits the legal protections of licensed marriage to only opposite sex couples. To do so, the state must have a legitimate reason. That is required by the constitution, and by our own inate sense of fairness. We can’t do so arbitrarily.
Last summer when the Wasington State Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state’s DOMA by arguing that the state had a legitimate, rational basis reason for the law. The Court said that the reason was to promote stable relationships among the biological parents of children. The Court went on to assert all sorts of fine sounding reasons why this was so. But basically, that was it. The purpose for legal recognition of only the marriage of opposite sex couples in Washington was for the sake of the children.
The Court ruled that same sex couples do not serve that purpose, since they cannot produce children. (Hmmm.)
It’s not unreasonalbe, therefor, to suggest that the very same reason (if it really is a reason) for denying legal marriage to same sex couples, could also be applied to non-reproductive opposite sex couples.