Madness in Washington State?

[acroyear]

Update: kmusser says its intentionally over the top and sarcastic, by a pro-gay rights group, in order to raise awareness as to the stupidity of restricting marriage because marriage is "for the benefit of the children" (one of the more popular excuses in the defense of marriage proposals out there).

Living the Scientific Life (Scientist, Interrupted): No Kids? No Marriage!:

things are looking mighty strange in that state [Washington] because of an intitiative that would require all married couples to have kids within three years of saying "I do" or their marriage would be annulled.

Who filed this initiative? Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance (WA-DoMA), that's who. That group was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage. Why did they file this initiative? Because they are trying to prove the fundamentalists' point that all marriages are simply for the purpose of procreation, nothing more (apparently).

"For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation ... The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine," said WA-DOMA organizer Gregory Gadow in a printed statement. "If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage."

If passed by Washington voters, the Defense of Marriage Initiative would:

1. add the phrase, "who are capable of having children with one another" to the legal definition of marriage;

2. require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;

3. 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;"

4. establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and

5. make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits.

Brilliant, no? Ends Gay Marriage AND it ends the marriages of thousands of elderly couples, long past the age of procreation, straight couples who want nothing more than to be together as long as time lets them. It also targets divorcees, as most couples from split marriages already have their kids and don't want anymore. It also targets widows, since again, couples who inherited a kid from a previous marriage tend to not want to add to the family, depending on age and personal stress levels through the original spouses deaths.

In short, if you're marriage ain't "normal" (and less than 20% are, these days), then it's not a marriage and you can just go fuck off according to these people.

*sigh*

Anybody out there want to tell it to my face that faireraven and I, or keltique and3ravensringo , or any number of couples in our various circles really don't deserve to be married?

That's right, WA-DoMA: come say it to our faces.

Poe's law strikes again: "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."

Comments

[gypsyariana.livejournal.com]

Dude, what the hell? Who do these people think they are???

You can add captnsparrow and I to that list of couples who "don't deserve to be married." (Though we're not YET, but will be by the end of this year.) I think I"ll just stay away from Washington State.

[kmusser]

I think you missed the part about the initiative being so over the top on purpose - it's not intended to pass, it's intended to provoke debate about what marriage is. WA-DoMA is a gay rights organization - their argument is that this is effectively what gay marriage opponents have been arguing all along and they're trying to show how ridulous it is.

[zombie-dog.livejournal.com]

Thank you! Their website is here.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

Poe's law strikes again: "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."

[thelongshot.livejournal.com]

I'm waiting for them to require the bloody sheet to be hanging from the house.

[wilhelmina-d.livejournal.com]

First off, I totally agree with you - this is a Bad Idea. But, I think it is being done as a social protest against those who shot down gay marriage. As I understand it* they have no real desire to have it pass.

Still, what does a marriage certificate give that publically declaring your intent to be a couple/triplet/etc not give? Tax breaks that discriminate against those that choose not to or are forbidden from marriage?

To reiterate, though, I think if this went through it would make things seriously screwed up.

*only from what I've read about this, not hearing from the horse's lips.

[wilhelmina-d.livejournal.com]

PS - Sorry! Between typing this and hitting post I got a phone call - so this has been addressed already.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

read the update.

however, Still, what does a marriage certificate give that publically declaring your intent to be a couple/triplet/etc not give? Tax breaks that discriminate against those that choose not to or are forbidden from marriage?

The state of New York found 375 inherent rights and privilages automatically allocated with a marriage license.

a few examples:

• 5th amendment spousal privilage protections - you can't not be compelled to testify against your legal spouse confidential communications that had an expectation of privacy.
• right of decision over your children - only if you are married to the blood parent of a child do you have any rights over the child, regardless of how intenset the relationship is. if not married, you can be out-voted by a blood relative in a heartbeat.
• hospital visition rights - if not married, you really do have no right (and in fact, the law enforces this) to see a patient in a hospital if they don't give consent, and if they are unable to give that consent (coma, etc), you can't get it in any other way. This is one of those rights where a legal contract *used to* override this, but the law changes in VA and OH have eliminated your rights to force a hospital to acknowledge a contractual obligation.

There's more. a LOT more. just about everything connected with inheritances can be challenged if you're not married. you can't even go to the impound lot to get your car out of hock if it just so happens that the car is in the other persons name, unless you can prove joint ownership and that can usually only be done through marriage.

"with this ring" indeed.

[johnbroadfoot.livejournal.com]

For the record, that's Nathan Poe.

[thatwasjen]

FTR (and not that it adds anything to the debate at this point), I belong on that list of childfree married people, too.

As seen on CNN...

[alliesutherland.livejournal.com]

http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/us/2007/02/13/rowlands.childless.couples.cnn