2.15.2007

i had my rant prepared

...until man-wife pointed out who the force behind the legislation is: and it's not those karl rove evangelical puppets.

my original thought was, "wow, another attempt by the population of Jesusland to knock out gay marriage and premarital sex/sex for pleasure and drive women back into roles of submission". my thought now: "what a novel approach". i liked it to forcing the hand of the American public. as though "well, here, then, let us help you DEFINE marriage".

it'll never hold, of course. but "thanks for playing", as Maggie'd say.

Washington: New Legislation Says, "No Children, No Marriage"
02.07.07

By Anthony Cuesta

Same-sex marriage advocates in Washington are pushing a state ballot measure that would limit marriage only to couples who prove they can bear children within three years.

Proponents say the proposal was aimed at "social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation."

The Associated Press reports that The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance acknowledged on its Web site that the initiative was "absurd" but hoped the idea prompts "discussion about the many misguided assumptions" underlying a state Supreme Court ruling that upheld a ban on same-sex marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) limits marriage to a union of one man and one woman.

The measure would require couples to prove they can have children to get a marriage license and would dissolve the union of those who remain childless.

All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized," making those couples ineligible for marriage benefits.

The Defense of Marriage Alliance's Gregory Gadow told the Seattle Times that his alliance — whose name itself is part of the parody, forming the acronym DOMA — is a loosely organized group of 15 or so friends. While they will work to get Initiative 957 on the ballot and passed in November, Gadow said he doesn't really want to see it enacted — and would expect the Supreme Court ultimately to strike it down as unconstitutional.

The paperwork for the measure was submitted last month. Supporters must gather at least 224,800 signatures by July 6 to put it on the November ballot.

Cheryl Haskins, executive director of Allies for Marriage and Children, told the AP that opponents of same-sex marriage want only to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

"Some of those unions produce children and some of them don't," she said to the AP.


(and some of us produce children outside those unions! yay, unmarried!)

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Hi
Did you make it to court on this one? What did they say, I really wonder sometimes if it would be possible to sue the state/insurance companies,etc on issues like this, how dare they say oh, 4,000$ poof if you marry/sign this piece of stamped paper. The issue then isn't family values, but the appearance of having family values. Then, if the issue is appearance, who knows if someone signed a piece of paper to make a "family" or not, it's not really something people hang on thier walls.
Anyhow, I could go off on a nice long rant on this, but will save it for a day when the weather is really terrible.