File this one in the really bad legislation to make a really good point category.
An initiative filed by proponents of same-sex marriage would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriage annulled.
Initiative 957 was filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance. That group was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington’s ban on same-sex marriage.
Under the initiative, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children in order to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriage would be subject to annulment.
All other marriages would be defined as “unrecognized” and people in those marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.
“For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation … The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine,” said WA-DOMA organizer Gregory Gadow in a printed statement.
OMG, only thing we need is a law to force bible thumpers and ultra conservatives to keep procreating. Whoever came up with this one has lost their mind. As much as I despise the social ulta-conservatives, I will never stoop to their level of hatred or stupidity.
ehh, it doesn’t have a chance in hell of passing, but could prove revealing.
kinda meaningless – like the senate dems antiwar resolution
It’s kind of funny. In a sick and over-populated sort of way. Everyone saw Jesus Camp. What a fucking horror movie that was.
absolutely brilliant move.Just the kind of thinking that we need in the us senate! just the kind of move that gets the thinking off center and should stimulate debate! BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
billjpa
The Washington Supreme Court decision which brought this on was horrendous. One of the arguments was that the state had an interest in limiting marriage to those who can procreate. Worst argument ever. They had it coming.
We need a new word: heterophobia. Some gays are so extreme that they are not willing to concede that in any respect, to any degree, heteros are more normal than homos. That is the mindset that undelies this initiative.
This is a kind of fundamentalism. It probably wouldn’t be possible without post-modernism.
Some gays are so extreme that they are not willing to concede that in any respect, to any degree, heteros are more normal than homos. That is the mindset that undelies this initiative.
While reading the blogs frequently causes me to deeply regret it, I am as heterosexual as it’s possible to be and as a WA state resident I fully embrace this initative. Indeed I shall send them money and work to get enough names on the petition for it to qualify for the ballot.
Good lord, this isn’t so contest about who is more ‘normal’.
What can this possibly accomplish? The measure will be seen as absurd and easily defeated. People who don’t think gays should have the right to marry will learn nothing from it. The whole effort is so obviously cynical and propagandistic that it will just make gay activists look like the mirror image of fundies.
The main problem with gay marriage is that it goes against the traditional understanding of marriage. But this initiative goes against that understanding just as much. So the initiative can have no resonance. Putting so much effort into cynically mocking one argument in a court decision is bad politics.
The proponents of this measure know it has no chance of passing. They declare it absurd at the outset. So why are they pushing to get this on the ballot?
It’s quite simple, really. By having this measure in front of the voters, they want to get people talking about the issue. (So far, that part seems to be working.) They want people to realize that not only is this law absurd, but so are DOMA-style laws such as the one the Washington Supreme Court upheld a while back. And they figure that if by chance there are enough wackjobs here in Washington to get this to pass, the Supreme Court will strike it down as unconstitutional within about 45 minutes of the time it goes up in front of them — but they are hoping that in bringing a measure like this in front of the people, they will force the Supremes to reconsider DOMA as well.
I don’t have all the information. You can find more on the Seattle P-I web site. It’s dinner time, so I don’t have the time to look up their web site. Sorry.
Basically, it’s political theater, writ large. No one expects this to pass. Everyone expects it to create controversy. But it’s better than any of the initiatives Tim Eyman puts forward to make his living, and it has a much better rationale for being proposed.
Well, if they declare it absurd at the outset, that’s different. Then I take back what I said above about “gay extremism”. A dose of irony would do any state’s politics some good.
I’m not convinced that the strategy will be very effective, but given that we have 50 states, it’s worth trying in one. That’s the way the system’s supposed to work: you have the opportunity to run 50 different experiments on any given issue.
The P-I says they actually use the word “absurd” on their web site. 🙂
To be honest I wish we had something like the Rhinoceros Party here in the US. The closest I think we get is Billionaires for Bush, which I think is a gas.
Politics in this country sure could use a good swift kick in the pants.
Please try not to put the word “gas” and the phrase “kick in the pants” so close together. For the digestively challenged, this is an unpleasant conjunction too easily imagined without your help.
Otherwise, keep doing what you do.
Well, if they declare it absurd at the outset, that’s different.
Here’s their webpage
Then I take back what I said above about “gay extremism”.
Too late.
As to what we hope to accomplish:
The Andersen ruling said, in part “it’s a legitimate state interest to restrict marriage to couples who can procreate.”
(which is crap, even for ‘normal’ people)
The creators of the initiative say:
“…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 unconstitutional 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.”
Mind you, this is in a political climate where the three top GOP ’08 presidential candidates have 8 wives between them and believe me, I find the notion of social conservatives from either political party choking on their rhetoric (or anything else) to be a delightful notion..
What can this possibly accomplish?
Have you read the SC’s objectionable decision? Or even read about it?
The main problem with gay marriage is that it goes against the traditional understanding of marriage.But this initiative goes against that understanding just as much.
And what ‘traditional’ understanding would that be?
In another post, you said it was “too late” for me to correct an error. So I can only conclude that you are not interested in communicating in an amicable fashion. Which leads me to interpret this comment as a hostile provocation, so I am not going to answer your your question, especially given that you know the answer.
This attempt at a law is a joke dude, just like the right wing fag-haters laws on marriage that some 30+ states have passed.
Don’t take it so seriously. Just take seriously the totalitarian stance of 30+ state with anti-equal rights laws concerning marriage, and where does it stop? . . .
My wife likes to say that she has 150 kids. She’s an 8th grade science teacher. Frankly, we’re selfish (okay, I am, but she agrees with me) and not interested in promulgating the species right now. Tell the wingnuts to check back with us in a decade. If they’re lucky.
I’m always gratified when the hidden motivations behind political movements “come out of the closet” and even the guy at the 7/11 can understand. This is one of those times.
The fundamentalist folks are getting paranoid. They aren’t having kids fast enough. And (horrors) as soon as they let those home-schooled kids out of the kitchen, a lot of them are abandoning fundamentalism. The solution: Keep women in the kitchen except when they are in the bedroom.
In a separate diary last week I pulled a couple quotes from a speech that ushered in the Nazi holocaust. The rhetoric was exactly the same! Women, no birth control. Stay home and pop out (nice, Aryan) babies as fast as you can! The parallels are frightening.
But it starts from a world view. I also predicted Haggard’s cure weeks ago–but never dreamed his lifelong tendencies could disappear so quickly. (A miracle?) The world view of these folks is that a god with a long white beard controls their every action, that homosexuality is a choice rather than a condition of birth, and that they are destined to rule. So forcing reproduction is just part of what is demanded of them.
It’s so immoral it’s hard to countenance…but at least now it’s overt.
Require Pregnancy before marriage.
Oh man, this is hysterically brilliant. The point is to get people talking about the asinine DOMA…and I think this will succeed. You get nowhere in a hurry waiting for people to magically wake up one day and decided certain people deserve the same equality/rights that you enjoy and take for granted.