Last chance to weigh in: Washington Defense of Marriage Initiative

[TechBear_Seattle]

Web: http://www.wa-doma.org

On July 26, 2006, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that the state's "Defense" of Marriage Act was constitutional. The basis for the lead decision was that the state has a "legitimate interest" in preserving marriage for the sole purpose of procreation, and that this interest supercedes the admitted inequity of the law. The Washington Defense of Marriage Initiative was written in response to that ruling and would give the basis for the decision the force of law.

If passed, the initiative would:

* Require that married couples be capable of having children together.

* Place a requirement on married couples to procreate within a specific window of time. Couples married in-state who do not procreate will have their marriages declared null (in effect, the marriage license gets revoked.) Couples married out-of-state will have their marriage "unrecognized" in accordance with existing law.

The full text is available at the website listed above. The initiative will be filed with the Washington Secretary of State on January 9, 2006.

And to answer the question, "Why?" I think it will be very fun to see the rightard Talibangelicals who scream about marriage existing for procreation make excuses about how they didn't really mean what they were saying.

[SutaUvaca]

1. Don't know what to say to such stuff??!

The state "has a legitimate interest in" basically promoting procreation, and punishing non-babymakers.
Powerful diaper industry lobby in your state, TBear. :)
I have to believe this kind of nonsense won't really stand.

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. Read the Court rulings yourself

http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/?fa=newsinfo.internetdetail&newsid=707

It is interesting to note that the lead ruling did not get a majority; only three of the state's seven judges signed off on it. Two other judges signed a different ruling to uphold the state's Defense of Marriage Act, which is even scarier than the first. That made a majority to uphold, so the law stands.

The dissenting opinion, to overturn WA-DOMA, received the most number of judges.

[eridani]

3. I think some activists in Oregon tried something similar--

--though more off the wall. It was a full equality initiative which would have required that unusually ugly or attractive people be required to have surgery to put them closer to "normal" and a number of other things of that sort. Can't find a trace of it online. I remember their theme song was "You've got to be me!"

[Missy Vixen]

4. Bring it on

DH and I talked about it. I look forward to the State of Washington telling me that our marriage does not exist because we had (and have,) no intention of having children.

Julie

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. The state already has, that's the point

The state Supreme Court has defined marriage as having value only in the context of "having and raising children." (Read the rulings at http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/?fa=newsinfo.internetdetail&newsid=707) Since July 26, 2006, EVERY CHILDLESS MARRIAGE IN WASHINGTON STATE HAS COME UNDER QUESTION.

The Court has already taken the first step towards invalidating your marriage and tens of thousands of other marriages. It is only a matter of time before the next step is taken. While pushing for equal marriage is the primary goal of Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, highlighting the sheer idiocy of the Court's ruling and how it affects all childless marriages is high on our list.

If you live in Washington, I hope we can count on your support. Merely proposing an initiative won't make the news; getting it on the ballot by collecting enough valid signatures most certainly will.