Participating in Politics Ironically

In July 2006, the Washington State Supreme Court upheld a ban on gay marriage in part because
limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race.... Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature’s view, further these purposes....
...DOMA [Defense of Marriage Act] bears a reasonable relationship to legitimate state interests—procreation and child-rearing.
I just read in the Slog that the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance (WA-DOMA) is seeking signatures for Initiative 957, the Defense of Marriage Initiative. If I-957 passes, married couples in Washington would be required to file proof of procreation within three years of their date of marriage or have the marriage annulled. Of course, WA-DOMA doesn't really expect I-957 to pass, and if it somehow does, the Supreme Court would no doubt strike it down as unconstitutional immediately. But I really hope this initiative passes.

  1. I don’t think it’s going to do anyone a lick of good to require that more children be born. Washington should require you to take a general intelligence test before you get married and have kids. People who pass (gay or straight) can get married and have kids – those who fail should be killed.

    It’ll weed out insane bill proposals like this in no time.

    February 7th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
  2. I don’t think the point is to do good by requiring that more children are born. I think the point is that if the state can ban gay marriage because it has an interest in promoting procreation through marriage, the state should be consistant about it. That means banning anyone else who can’t (or won’t) have kids from marriage as well.

    I have heard many people make this “I’m not homophobic, but it is not natural because they can’t have children” argument. If this is the case, then we should shun heterosexual couples who are barren, old couples who can no longer conceive, and couples who have no intention of having kids simply because they don’t want to.

    I have brought this up in conversation and yet I have never heard a good response to this. By this logic anyone who suffers a bad enough injury to the groin should be denied the right to visit the person they love in the hospital, should be denied any marriage tax advantages, etc.

    February 7th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
  3. Oh, by the way, Ry and I just had our third year of marriage in October. So, technically by that rule since we have not tried to have children, our marriage would be absolved. Hmm…

    S. H. Skuld
    February 8th, 2007 at 4:57 pm

Post a Comment

(or leave a trackback to your blog)