Washington State: Marriage for procreation only?

[Tock]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...nokids06m.html

Initiative ties marriage, procreation
By Lornet Turnbull


A group of gay-marriage supporters could begin collecting signatures today for a November ballot initiative that would limit marriage in Washington to couples willing and able to have children.

The measure would also dissolve the union of those who remain childless three years after marrying.

Are they serious?

Gregory Gadow, of the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, said the group hopes to make a point by parodying a state Supreme Court ruling last year that denied gays the right to marry because, among other reasons, such unions don't further the purpose of procreation.

Gadow, a computer programmer who lives on Capitol Hill, said that premise "has never been subject to public examination."

The justices, in a 5-4 ruling in July, upheld Washington's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which limits marriage to a union of one man and one woman.

Gadow said his alliance — whose name itself is part of the parody, forming the acronym DOMA — is a loosely organized group of 15 or so friends. While they will work to get Initiative 957 on the ballot and passed in November, Gadow said he doesn't really want to see it enacted — and would expect the Supreme Court ultimately to strike it down as unconstitutional.

And that's the point, he said. By striking down I-957, he believes the court would be forced to confront its decision in the gay-marriage case.

"We want people to think about the purpose of marriage," he said. "If it exists for the purpose of procreation, they must understand then that these are the consequences."

The Rev. Joseph Fuiten of Cedar Park Assembly of God sees it all as nonsense — and doubts the sponsors will put much effort into it. They would need to gather at least 224,880 signatures by July 6 to get the initiative on the November ballot.

"It's so obviously a joke, poking fun at the argument that marriage is an institution for the having of children," Fuiten said. "I read it, laughed and threw it away."

Other gay-rights groups don't appear too eager to back the proposal, either.

Longtime gay-rights activist Bill Dubay said that while he gets the point of the initiative, it is unlikely he'd sign it.

"I don't think anybody in the gay community wants to take someone else's rights away," he said. "We just want to gain the rights that everybody else has."

The gay-rights organization Equal Rights Washington also won't endorse it, pointing out that families come in all forms, some of which don't include children. State laws, it said, should help — not hurt — families.

Gadow said the alliance would introduce two other proposals over the next few years, one that would prohibit divorce or separation by married people who have children together and another that would make having a child together the equivalent of marriage.

[mcpeepants]

that seems stupid and counterproductive

[Tock]

Everyone agrees.

The story behind the story is, that some folks challenged an anti-gay marriage law in court so that gays can marry, but the judges essentially said that marriage was only for people who make babies.

This precedent provides support for the notion that married couples without children cannot remain married, and heterosexuals who are too old to reproduce or who are infertile, cannot marry.

Making this plain to Washington State residents is one way to get the court to revisit its decision, which is the intent of the folks pushing for the new law.

[SMAN12b]

so any man that may be impotent or any woman that need a hysterectomy are never allowed to marry......it will never pass

[BladesOfBlood]

Everyone in the US should have Equal Rights. PERIOD.

[SMAN12b]

and Equal Lefts too !!....LOLOL sorry couldnt' resist

[Tock]

The problem rests with the Washington Supreme Court which said:

"Therefore, we apply the highly deferential rational basis standard of
review to the legislature's decision that only opposite-sex couples are
entitled to civil marriage in this state. Under this standard, DOMA
(the Defense Of Marriage Act) is
constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that
limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation,
essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of
children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes
headed by the children's biological parents. Allowing same-sex couples
to marry does not, in the legislature's view, further these purposes."