Defense of Marriage

[sleigh]

(via Boing-Boing, so presumably many of you have already seen this): I found this interesting. There is a ballot initiative (I-957) being floated in Washington State which is an attempt via absurdity to challenge the Washington Supreme Court's decision in Andersen vs. King County, which held that Washington has "a 'legitimate state interest' [to allow] 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 what the "Defense of Marriage Alliance" is proposing is to put the Court's ruling into law. If the proposal would make it onto the ballot and be passed by the voters, Washington have to do the following:

-- 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.

Yes, that sounds absurd, and is exactly the point. I'll let the backers of this proposal speak for themselves:

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 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.

I suppose it's possible to get this on the ballot -- all it requires is signatures, after all. I seriously doubt that it would pass if on the ballot, but it's an interesting concept: using the conservative rhetoric against the very people who speak it. That, I like!

Comments

Won my vote...

[ontology101.livejournal.com]

My favorite politicing of 2007. I doubt it can be unseated but lets see! My favorite politicing in 2004 were the gay rights groups who, whenever picketed by that batty preacher from the corn belt, would hold fundraisers for everyminute he picketed in their town. He started avoiding communities where his activities would raise money for gay causes...until we saw him no more. Loved it.

A.