Random Drivel from your Average Tosser

...with your host, Binty McShae - whether you like it or not!

Saturday, February 24, 2007

Marital strife

Tubthumper just sent me this article from http://www.komotv.com/news/5566451.html


OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced an initiative that would put a whole new twist on traditional unions between men and women: It would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriages annulled.

Initiative 957 was filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, which was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage. In that 5-4 ruling, the court found that state lawmakers were justified in passing the 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which restricts marriage to unions between a man and woman.

Under I-957, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriages would be subject to annulment.

All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized" and people in them would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.

"Absurd? Very," the group says on its Web site, which adds it is planning two more initiatives involving marriage and procreation. "But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions" underlying the Supreme Court's ruling.

Gregory Gadow, who filed I-957 last month, said the three-year timeframe was arbitrary.

"We did toy with the idea of (requiring) procreation before marriage," he said. "We didn't want to piss off the fundamentalists too much."

Gadow said that if the group's initiatives were passed, the Supreme Court would be forced to strike them down as unconstitutional, which he believes would weaken the original ruling upholding the Defense of Marriage Act.

But he said he highly doubts any of the initiatives will pass, and that they are being done "in the spirit of political street theater."

"Our intention is not to actually put this into law," he said. "All we want is to get this on the ballot and cause people to talk about it."

The group's Web site gives another reason: "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."

Cheryl Haskins, executive director of Allies for Marriage & Children, agreed with Gadow's group on at least one point about the initiative: "It's absurd," she said.

Haskins said opponents of same-sex marriage "have never said that the sole purpose of marriage is procreation."

"When we talk about defending the institution of marriage, we're talking about the union of a man and a woman," she said. "Some of those unions produce children and some of them don't."

With I-957, "you're dictating people's choices in a way that is utterly ridiculous," she said.

However, Gadow noted that the Supreme Court's majority decision specifically mentioned procreation throughout.

The opinion written by Justice Barbara Madsen concluded that "limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the state's interests in procreation and encouraging families with a mother and father and children biologically related to both."

Gadow said the argument is unfair when you're dealing with same-sex couples who are unable to have children together.

"What we are trying to do is display the discrimination that is at the heart of last year's ruling," he said.

Even the Legislature's most prominent proponent of same-sex marriage, Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, said he thought the initiative was misguided. While the "absurdity" of the Supreme Court decision should be discussed, that discussion needs to take place in the Legislature, he said.

"I don't think the initiative process should be used to determine the rights and protections of marriage," he said.

Murray, one of five openly gay lawmakers in the Legislature, is sponsoring a measure that would create domestic partnerships for same-sex couples and another to allow same-sex marriage. The domestic partnership measure has passed out of committee and a vote on the Senate floor could come within weeks.

The sponsor of the same-sex marriage measure in the House, Rep. Jamie Pedersen, said he supported the effort "to draw attention to the hypocrisy of some of those who oppose marriage equality" but opposed the initiative.

"For the same reason I don't think same-sex couples should be excluded from marriage, I don't think heterosexual married couples should be forced to procreate," said Pedersen, D-Seattle.

Supporters of I-957 must gather at least 224,800 valid signatures by July 6 to put it on the November ballot.

The measure's backers said the two additional initiatives they plan would prohibit divorce or separation when a married couple has children, and would make having a child together the equivalent of marriage.

Gadow said his goal is to raise $300,000 to spend on advertising on the first initiative.


In his e-mail Tubbie refers to the idea as completely insane, a sentiment which I am slightly inclined to echo, although at the same time I find it utterly ingenious. Will it work? Will it force the issue of same-sex marriage and weaken the Defense of Marriage Act? I'd like to hope so.

I am, however, slightly surprised by the negative reactions of Senator Murray and others who are pro-gay marriage. One would hope that they could understand that no-one actually really wants Initiative 957 to succeed, that it is just a way of exposing hypocrisy and bigotry. But then I suppose that as an openly gay Senator he has enough people opposing him and any perceived attack on the institution of marriage could seriously damage him...

Whatever happens I personally think that this is an excellent way of making a point and I urge any of you who can to contribute to the list of signatures so that this issue gets the attention it deserves.

Cheers m'dears!

Labels: , , , ,

7 Comments:

At Monday, February 26, 2007 11:10:00 pm, Blogger P1P said...

If I could sign this as a non US citizen I'd sign in a second. It's time to fuck with the heads of the God Bothering, apple pie eating yeehawing, bigoted right wing.

 
At Tuesday, February 27, 2007 11:11:00 pm, Blogger Kim Ayres said...

The problem with using irony to prove a point, is that most people don't understand it.

 
At Thursday, March 01, 2007 2:44:00 pm, Blogger Sarah said...

(i'm with kim on this one, it will float over heads)

and.. i'm scared that it will pass..

 
At Thursday, March 01, 2007 5:06:00 pm, Blogger michael the tubthumper said...

i sort of agree with sarah.

i once watched the yes men
http://www.theyesmen.org/
go round and get people to sign a petition IN FAVOUR of global warming

 
At Friday, March 02, 2007 12:22:00 pm, Blogger SafeTinspector said...

I'm with Kim and Sarah on this. This proposal is a spit in the eye of everything I hold dear, and makes a mockery of my God-fearing beliefs that Jesus specifically condemns loving relationships that have too many identical sets of genitalia. It has NOTHING to do with Children and EVERYTHING to do with His beloved and belessed plan.

 
At Saturday, March 03, 2007 12:02:00 pm, Blogger Binty McShae said...

SafeT, you're scaring me now.

Tubbie, Sarah - whilst I understand that some folk are so fucked in the heads and ultra loony-lefty they would take this seriously, I doubt very much that this proposal would ever be passed into law. The right wing wouldn't stand for it and anyone on the left that understood that its purpose is for debate and it is not a legit proposal would vote against it.

Of course, people have made such naive assumptions before....

 
At Tuesday, March 06, 2007 2:08:00 pm, Blogger Sarah said...

i think you underestimate stupidity.

(it's easily done..)

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home