RECENT  POSTS:  » Jodie Foster in 2013: 'I am'; Jodie Foster in 2014: 'I do' » AFA promotes its new app in only way it knows how » Robert Oscar Lopez says I perform 'psychological operations routine' on him when I quote his own words from his own web site » Matt Barber's ever-classy site suggests gay people are literally crushing fellow humans » Bryan Fischer is on to our comic book villain–in-chief » Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's Al Mohler 'can't give' us acceptance; good thing we're not asking » NOM fails to trip up Oregon marriage case » Audio: Tony Perkins equates opposing equality with opposing Nazis » 'WaPo' conservative columnist: 'Strident' marriage equality opponents have lost » If you feel like you hear about another marriage case every day, here's why  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

02/06/2007

WA marriage proposal: One man, one woman, and at least one child

by Jeremy Hooper

State-Flag-WashingtonGay activists in Washington have come up with a novel way to challenge the long-touted claims from conservatives (and some courts) that "marriage is primarily about children." The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance (which sounds anti-gay but is actually pro-gay) has proposed an initiative that, if passed, 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.

The Alliance is seeking these matrimony requirements in response to their Supreme Court's declaration that the state has a "legitimate interest" in limiting marriage to couples who are capable of procreation. The thought: If the state's going to be bold enough to use conception as a basis for unequal marriage ruling (as it also was in New York state), then make it an ACTUAL marriage requirement. Essentially saying to social conservatives: Put your money where your fertile womb is!

Genius!

Now, even the Alliance themselves admit the measure is "absurd" and that is has no chance of making it to actual legal status. However, it is meant to start a dialogue about how irrational it is to paint "traditional marriage" as if child rearing is some sort of prerequisite. The hope is that this will make couples of all shapes, sizes, and abilities to reproduce catch on to the illogicality that is commonly being used in various courts of law to justify marriage inequality. After all, getting the majority to recognize the bullsh*t in their midst is the first step towards its elimination!

For more on this and to see how you can help, click the link below:

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance [WA-DOMA]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

I think this is a great idea. Maybe they should even go one step farther and dissolve any marriage where either the man or woman has an affair.

Posted by: -sean- | Feb 6, 2007 10:31:11 AM

This is possibly one of the greatest things I've ever read. I actually spit out my Diet Pepsi a little. Then I showed my boss. :)

Posted by: Steve Miller | Feb 6, 2007 10:32:11 AM

I think I just creamed myself at the thought. Whoever came up with this is a mastermind. I would surely like to shake their hands and give them a pat on the back. what better way to open the eyes of the public to the way they've been treating us with the act of marriage. Just a little taste of their own medicine would serve them right and give us a one up on moving forward and getting equal rights.

Posted by: Fin Bheara | Feb 6, 2007 11:02:42 AM

Sean: what do you mean dissolve a marriage where one of the spouses has an affair? That's the easy way out. I think a state should stick up for rescuing traditional marriage by making it a felony, with a maximum sentence of life in prison, for having an affair. Oh, wait, my state already has...Perhaps there's a benefit for not being able to get married, after all.

Posted by: Joel | Feb 6, 2007 11:46:12 AM

This is an oldie but a goodie and probably most everyone has seen it, but it still makes me laugh.

10 reasons Gay Marriage is wrong:

1. Being gay is not natural. And as you know Americans have always rejected unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because, as you know, a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed. The sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Posted by: Paul | Feb 6, 2007 11:42:11 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails