One Utah

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance has decided to take the Culture Warriors at their word.

They’re proposing an intiative for Washington State Voters, I 957.  In response to a state court ruling:

. . . 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.

So, the folks behind the initiative said to themselves, “If it is in the state’s interest to limit marriage to couples who have and raise children together, we should limit marriage to couples who have and raise children together.

So:

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.

 Here’s the deal: for years now culture warriors have been telling us that marriage is about procreation and since same sex couples can’t procreate, they can’t marry.  Well if marriage is about procreation, let’s be serious about limiting it to those who can and have procreated together.

In case you’re curious, the folks behind the initiative know this is offensive and absurd:

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.

 

This entry was posted Monday, February 5th, 2007 at 11:03 am and is filed under Elections, Equality, Homophobia, Human Rights, Religious Fundamentalism, Society. Both comments and pings are currently closed.