Ultra-Defense of Marriage
This is making a bit of a stir, as it should: a ballot initiative in Washington State (I-957: "The Defense of Marriage Initiative") that would require married couples — mixed-gender only, please! — to produce children to demonstrate that procreation is a realizable function of their union.
The background goes like this. In reviewing a couple of superior-court cases from 2004, the Washington Supreme Court bought the right-wing propaganda that marriages are primarily for having children:
On July 26, 2006, the Washington supreme court cited the "legitimate state interests" of procreation and child-rearing as a basis for preserving the defense of marriage act. The People of Washington find it desirable to place part of this ruling into statutory form and make procreation a requirement for valid marriage in this state. [from initiative text]
It has long been argued by anti-gay-marriage fanatics that marriage is strictly in some fashion about procreation or the logical possibility of procreation and therefore gay people simply cannot be married, nyah nyah.
Initiative 957, created by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, takes the fanatics at their word — not to mention the ill-considered statements of the Washington Supreme Court — and seeks to establish procreation as a requirement of marriage. The strategy is simple (quoting from):
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.
But don't feel sorry for the newly weds: they'll have 3 years to produce their child. Phew.
Reactions so far among the right-wing fanatics has been mixed: some think the initiative barely goes far enough but is a good start; others are suspicious and think maybe they're being made fun of, but it still sounds like a good idea to them.
Although I hate to divert possible contributions from Ars Hermeneutica (see "Support Ars Hermeneutica"), the home page of the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance tells visitors how to contribute and how to obtain petitions to help gather the needed 224,880 valid signatures to get onto the November ballot.
4 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Friday, 9 February 2007 at 03.43
Permalink
The iniative process in Washington state has spawned an industry which has crackpots for tycoons and suckers for customers. A few years ago the pied piper of bad end-run legislation set infrastructure upkeep back decades with a very popular measure to de-fund the highway budget. Well, very popular until the suckers started noticing their highways weren't getting widened and improved, and in some cases weren't being maintained in anything like the manner to which they had become accustomed.
Duh.
So, this marriage initiative nonsense comes as no surprise. Really, these people need their own planet.
on Sunday, 11 February 2007 at 23.19
Permalink
What??? Is this post supposed to be dated April 1st??? I am simply flabbergasted. As a childfree married person, I guess I won't be moving to Washington! Who are these people?
on Wednesday, 14 February 2007 at 18.51
Permalink
I suppose one could argue that procreation is the BASIS for marriage, but one does not have to actually procreate to be married.
on Thursday, 15 February 2007 at 19.01
Permalink
I think, perhaps, that y'all may be getting the message, which — of course — is the purpose of this satirical initiative: it could become law and affect you! Just think of that, all those irritating homophobes who apparently obsess about sex and self-righteously maintain that "marriage" is all about how the parts fit, or that it's all for the children (talk about transferrance!) might have to put their gonads where their mouths are and take seriously this serious business of just voting people's rights away.
To be honest, I'm pretty tired of my rights being talked about like I'm not even in the room, as though there are two sides to consider about my 15-year relationship with Isaac. I don't feel much empathy for the worry and hand-wringing of straight people over this initiative, the very ones who happily and unthinkingly vote away my civil rights whenever they have the chance.
In my opinion, if your dander is up I'd humbly suggest spending less effort venting your spleen over this meant-to-be-obviously ridiculous initiative and direct your anger towards the self-righteous bigots who seem so intent on enlisting your good will in denying my equality.
By the way, I enjoyed this letter, reprinted from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and the subsequent discussion of the matter.