Last chance to weigh in: Washington Defense of Marriage Initiative

Web: http://www.wa-doma.org

On July 26, 2006, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that the state's "Defense" of Marriage Act was constitutional. The basis for the lead decision was that the state has a "legitimate interest" in preserving marriage for the sole purpose of procreation, and that this interest supercedes the admitted inequity of the law. The Washington Defense of Marriage Initiative was written in response to that ruling and would give the basis for the decision the force of law.

If passed, the initiative would:

* Require that married couples be capable of having children together.

* Place a requirement on married couples to procreate within a specific window of time. Couples married in-state who do not procreate will have their marriages declared null (in effect, the marriage license gets revoked.) Couples married out-of-state will have their marriage "unrecognized" in accordance with existing law.

The full text is available at the website listed above. The initiative will be filed with the Washington Secretary of State on January 9, 2006.

And to answer the question, "Why?" I think it will be very fun to see the rightard Talibangelicals who scream about marriage existing for procreation make excuses about how they didn't really mean what they were saying.

be hilarious.

It will no doubt be brought before the state Supreme Court. In the lead opinion, the Court expressly gave the Legislature (and, by extention, to the People through the initiative process) the authority to determine how marriage will be applied in this state. If the Court reverses the initiative, it will perforce reverse the marriage decision that led to this initiative, and the door will become permanently open for equal marriage in Washington State.

If the initiative fails (and I expect that it will fail big), proponents of equal marriage can call it a referendum, cite 70% or 80% of the state's voters have rejected the premise of the ruling, and demand a reconsideration of the state's Defense of Marriage Act.

If we can get this on the ballot (and it will require about 280,000 signatures), this will be a win-win for the cause of equal marriage.

and I think you should line up talking points and people to write angry letters to the newspaper demanding that heteros live up to the expectations of the evangenitals in the same manner they demanded US be forced to live by their standards.

That Supreme Court needs a good slap for that travesty of an opinion last July - if I lived in Washington, I'd be signing that petition in an instant! ! !

:hi:

And if you have friends or family in Washington, PLEASE tell them about the initiative and encourage them to both sign it and help circulate it. I plan to file this with the Secretary of State on January 9; we should have petitions ready for printing by the beginning of February.

determine that married couples can "procreate?" They might claim that is already a requirement. But I love the FORCED procreation or your marriage is dissolved....hahahahahaha.

In those states that do require a blood test, it is a test for syphillis and/or other sexually transmitted diseases.

Washington only requires a signed affidavit "showing that if an applicant is afflicted with any contagious sexually transmitted disease, the condition is known to both applicants." (RCW 26.04.210)

Require that married couples be capable of having children together.

So does this mean if a man gets a vasectomy, he's no longer qualified to marry? And, ooh, ooh!, all women go through menopause and can no longer have children. This takes place in their 40s or sometimes 50s. Does this mean an automatic divorce??

Place a requirement on married couples to procreate within a specific window of time. Couples married in-state who do not procreate will have their marriages declared null (in effect, the marriage license gets revoked.) Couples married out-of-state will have their marriage "unrecognized" in accordance with existing law.

That's ridiculous.

OTOH, the fun part is watching double standards take place - and the willingness of the people to point them out and demand an equal "playing field". (marriage isn't a game, but players are everywhere. Even the lawmakers are.)

And I wonder, if people don't marry and make a baby, what happens to them?

Never mind being able to make a living to properly RAISE the baby and make/be a family, which is one of their purported talking points.

If a man has had a vastectomy, he can not procreate. If a woman has gone through menopause or had a hysterectomy or a tubal ligation, she can not procreate. Applying the argument that marriage exists for the purpose of procreation, such people would be prohibited from marriage. Provided they procreate within marriage before such things happen, they may remain married as they have fulfilled the purpose of their marriage.

As for the marriage window, again it follows directly from the argument that marriage exists for the purpose of procreation. We do not necessarily want to require proof of mutual fertility before marriage, but we don't want to let a childless couple go for decades with all the benefits of marriage while not fulfilling the purpose of that marriage. So, an arbitrary window of time to allow them to have children together. Failure means that they have either refused to fulfil the purpose of their marriage or are unable; in either case, there is no reason why they should continue to receive the benefits of marriage.

I agree with you that this is ridiculous, but I fail to see any way around the bigots' argument that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation.

Washington requires that initiatives cover one and only one subject. Once we get this one passed, the next initiative will be one that prohibits divorce if the couple have minor children. Because, according to the state Supreme Court, having children is only the first purpose of marriage; they must then be raised. :evilgrin:

outside of GLBT. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I thought you had a signline saying you supported DOMA. I couldn't help myself. I was shocked. You were always so cool. I clicked it and rubbed my eyes a little to get them focused. Then I finally figured it out. It was something else. Whew.

Yeah, I agree. Let them try to wiggle out of their failed logic. It just does not compute on any level. Eventually, they will have to fold. They'll grumble and gripe about it forever and ever, but they are wrong. In order to uphold the Constition and the Bill of Rights, they'll have to let all people have the right to get married eventually. Otherwise, it's not truly equal rights for all.

Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance -- WA-DOMA. To progressives, we will point out the not-very-hidden joke. Talibangelicals and other conservatives will see the acronym and assume we mean the same thing they mean by DOMA.

Oh, and the initiative is generically called the Defense of Marriage Initiative, DOMI, pronounced "dummy" :evilgrin:

And note, we are not framing this as a constitutional issue. The state Supreme Court has already ruled that this is not a constitutional issue. We are framing this -- correctly, in the opinion of several legal experts we've consulted -- as the direct implementation of the Court's ruling.

This is good work. A law like this could have saved my cousins a world of pain when their father married his post-menopausal art teacher in the hospital the night before life-threatening surgery at the height of a hurricane.