Proof of Procreation Required for Marriage - Washington State Initiative

[WestHoustonDem]

It turns out that Texas is not the only state with right wing nut jobs.

Check out this defense of marriage initiative that is being pushed in Washington. http://www.wa-doma.org/Default.aspx

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.

[ixion]

1. lol... here's a picture of us doing it...

:rofl:

what a bunch of morans. :eyes:

[rock]

21. LLOL

That's a literal LOL. I snorted.

[ixion]

23. heh heh heh... thanks!

snorts are very complimentary, IMO. :rofl: :+ :hi:

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

22. Sorry - pictures won't do - we require a live witness!

Captain Morality enters the bedroom...

[flyingfysh]

2. so infertile people are not allowed to marry???

[helderheid]

8. NOPE! Got menopause? I wonder if those who go through the change have to divorce?

[uppityperson]

31. nope, here is a description:

It's an initiative put forth by gay activists in response to the decision by the state supreme court that marriage is for procreation.

We are calling the supreme court on their ruling. If the purpose of marriage, as they stated, is to procreate, anyone who can't or doesn't procreate should not be married. It won't pass, but it opens up a lot more debate on what the purpose of marriage is. If it isn't just to procreate, then gays should be allowed to get married.

[CBGLuthier]

3. Uhhm, actually, that is a left wing initiative

Designed to point out the lunacy of DOM legislation.

[Hobarticus]

10. Certainly proved their point, then...eom

[mmonk]

19. Yep, this is a back at you moron iniative.

I think it's great.

[wakeme2008]

4. This is piss off DINKs...

:rofl:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

5. That is stupid even by the standards of the wing-nuts. A spoof?

I wonder if it's a joke sneaked in by some anti-DOMA type, sort of like the "full enforcement of Leviticus" supporting statement that was added to the voters' guide in Oregon when one of the anti-gay initiatives was on the ballot.

It would invalidate all marriages in which one of the partners was infertile or past childbearing age.

Naa, this has to be a joke.

[mondo joe]

7. It's an initiative put forth by gay activists in response to the decision by the state supreme

court that marriage is for procreation.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

9. That was my suspicion

:7

I wonder if any wing nuts will be dumb enough to vote for it.

[Gman]

6. I really hate to use this word

but some people are way beyond stupid. What's even sicker is there will likely be a thread over at FR defending this.

[sharp_stick]

11. It's a brilliant move, you need to read a little deeper.

This website and the group behind it designed it to show people how idiotic most of these defense of marriage acts are.

This group wants to enact "with extreme prejudice" the ruling of a fundie judge who more or less used this "procreation" argument to rule against marriage benefits for same sex couples.

[KittyWampus]

12. Gay Activists Assert This Is Just Rhetorical Device To Prove A Point/Yet Many Defending This

initiative coming from Gay Activists HOWLED over Charlie Rangel's bill that would make military service mandatory.

In both cases, the proposed legislation is being used as a rhetorical device- to prove a point.

In both cases, it's said that pushing such legislation is acceptable because it has no chance of passing.

I won't state here how I feel about either of these pieces of proposed legislation but am happy to say my stance is CONSISTENT.

[Eugene]

13. ...and that's only the beginning!

From the DOMA home page:

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.

They are out of their minds.

[mondo joe]

15. Out of their minds? Not at all.

"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."

[Ian David]

14. See prior thread

Gay Rights Activists Introduce Initiative that Would Require Children in Marriages (Washington)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x118407

I propose that we call it "The de Brito Act."
http://home.earthlink.net/~ffontes/wedding.htm

[pnwmom]

16. We have some right wing nut jobs. But they're not behind that initiative.

It's some left-wingers trying to make a point.

[ProfessorGAC]

17. Someone Needs A Beating

My wife and i will be married 27 years in March. She had 3 miscarriages before our 3rd year, and one after that. We simply accepted the fact that we weren't going to have children.

And some moron would have annulled a marriage that has lasted 27 years?

This is "Defense" of marriage? I don't think so.
The Professor

[uppityperson]

28. you are missing the point of it.

Check post #27 below. Thanks for the concern but the idea is opposite what may be thought at first glance. As mondo joe put it so well above "It's an initiative put forth by gay activists in response to the decision by the state supreme court that marriage is for procreation."

[radfringe]

18. they should also add

fertility tests for both parties as part of the requirement to even get married.

no sense in getting married if the oven doesn't work, and the baker can hold a spatula

[jumpoffdaplanet]

20. And if a knowledgable DU didn't catch the real intent...

then this will like be passed by the morons who don't understand what marriage is really about.

Then Washington's court strikes it down, it will prove their previous ruling was bogus.

Brillant move! :)

[LaBanty]

24. sick f*cks

They aren't happy unless everyone else lives as they choose to live. Uptight, judgmental, overbearing, Fundie pieces of shit.

Let them eat soy.

[uppityperson]

29. Sorry but a whole bunch of liberals are behind this.

Please read more about it, I posted more in post #27 also. It is a brilliant move.

[Rainscents]

25. Damn... I can't wait to vote for this!!!!

Hehehe... I love it!!! Joke is on FUNDIE SC Andersen!!!

[alarimer]

26. It's sad that I can no longer tell the difference between a spoof

and a real proposal by right wingers. Maybe we shouldn't be giving them any ideas.

[uppityperson]

27. link to Big Thread about it. I wholeheartedly support this initiative.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x118407

Most of us think it is wonderful. WA Supreme court recently ruled that the purpose of marriage is for procreation. So, this initiative is being worked on to call them on it. There is minimal chance of passing, and it will bring a lot of good talking about the issue. The ultimate hope is to use this to overrule the supreme court (or whatever the proper term is) to say that the purpose of marriage is NOT just for procreation and hence gays should be allowed to marry also.

[Rainscents]

30. Thanks for the link!!! LOL

I love it!!! I AM VOTING FOR THIS!!!

[BlackVelvet04]

32. Did you read the article?

It isn't a right wing nut thing.

[uppityperson]

33. Sometimes it is easy to jump to false conclusions.It is supported by librul gay activists.

[Matariki]

34. Oh THIS is going to get far

</sarcasm>

Any nut job can file an initiative. We have TWO Democratic women for Senators and a Democratic woman Governor - just to give you an idea of the political climate in Washington state.

[Matariki]

35. OOPS!

should have read the article first. And the OP should have posted this excerpt:


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.