gl.

site feed by atom

Friday, February 16, 2007

 
2:49 PM: doma arigato [#] [3]

the washington defense of marriage alliance is doing something very interesting:

"In their ruling, the Supreme Court claimed a 'legitimate state interest' in defining marriage exclusively for the purpose of procreation and child-rearing. The justices then used this interest to declare that same-sex couples are properly barred from marriage because they are incapable of procreating.

"Over the next few years, we will propose three initiatives to the people, each focusing on a different aspect of Andersen. The first initiative will make procreation a requirement for legal marriage. The second would prohibit divorce or separation when a married couple has children together. The third would make having a child together the equivalent of marriage.

"Each of the initiatives we get passed will, no doubt, be struck down as unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court. Good; that is our ultimate goal. Each ruling against these initiatives will also be a ruling against the basis for keeping the state’s Defense of Marriage Act. Eventually, Andersen will fall apart under the weight of judicial opinion, and equal marriage – the marriage which we seek to defend – shall become a reality in this state.

"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."

they've actually managed to get the initiative process going: those of you in washington may want to support it.

Comments:

I need to find out where I can sign the petition (even though if it passes, it would annul my own marriage in 2.5 years).

# posted by  Philip : Sat Feb 17, 07:32:00 AM PST

 

When I saw that, my first thought was, "Don't give them any ideas -- they come up with enough bad ones on their own!"

My second thought was, "That's just brilliant!"

ebzfvoh

# posted by  S. Brown : Sat Feb 17, 09:03:00 PM PST

 

well, and "procreation" instead of "parents" or "families" means that people who might otherwise adopt would be in violation of the law. who exactly are we trying to protect...?

# posted by  gl. : Sat Feb 17, 11:21:00 PM PST

 

Post a Comment