Defense of Marriage Initiative
Ok, so first I laughed at the thought of this, and then I got scared about the idea that it might actually pass knowing the tards out there....
Again, someone shared this on an email list I belong to.
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.
What we are about
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.
Again, someone shared this on an email list I belong to.
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.
What we are about
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.