I-957 The Defense of Marriage Initiative

[uppityperson]

Glad they got the initiative filed. Here is their web address, will be putting up petitions soon.
http://www.wa-doma.org/

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.



What we are about

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance seeks to defend equal marriage in this state by challenging the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling on 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.

The way we are challenging Andersen is unusual: using the initiative, we are working to put the Court’s ruling into law. We will do this through three initiatives. The first would make procreation a requirement for legal marriage. The second would prohibit divorce or legal separation when there are children. The third would make the act of having a child together the legal equivalent of a marriage ceremony.

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.

[pnwmom]

1. Why don't we spend our time getting a civil union initiative passed instead?

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. You mean Jim Crow marriage?

Why should anyone be relegated to a separate and unequal anything? And if "civil unions" are supposed to be identical to marriage, why have a separate institution in the first place? And don't start with the religious arguments: in the United States, marriage is and always has been a civil matter governed by civil laws. No religious ceremony or ritual is required for legal marriage, and no religious ceremony or ritual on its own can create a legal marriage. The one and only thing that makes legal marriage is the filing of civil papers with the appropriate civil authority.

And as for Why.... The Washington Supreme Court ruled in Andersen v. King County A) that there is a "legitimate state interest" in encouraging couples to have and raise children together, B) that marriage has been the mechanism by which this "legitimate state interest" has been promoted and C) that it is not a violation of anyone's rights for the Legislature to take whatever steps it deems necessary to maintain marriage for the purpose of promoting this "legitimate state interest." In other words, couples who can not have children together (such as same sex couples) have no right to be married. Every single childless marriage in this state has been called into question, and it is now a legal precedent that the ability to have children can be used as a prerequisite for getting married. Is this a precedent that should remain standing?

If this "legitimate state interest" is valid, then it must be applied equally on ALL couples, not just same-sex couples but any couple that is unable to have children together for any reason. If this "legitimate state interest" is not valid, then it is invalid for ALL couples, not just different-sex couples. To maintain this double standard is extremely bigoted. Again, is this a precedent that should remain standing?

What we are doing with Initiative 957 is taking the Supreme Court's argument and putting it into statutory form. If we can get this on the ballot and passed, we will have set up a case that can be brought back to the Court which will resolve the question of whether or not this "legitimate state interest" is valid. We have no doubt at all that the Court will strike it down, which will not only have the effect of reversing Andersen but will also remove this unfair, unjust, bigoted precedent. We are not just working for equal marriage; we are working to defend a marriage where the ability or desire to have children is not a matter of legal interest.