How ridiculous is this?

[CathyBogart]

I hate children, and I think this bill is a wonderful idea. I'd vote for it. They're trying to accomplish a wonderful thing with this ridiculous bill.

[popcornbird]

I hate children, and I think this bill is a wonderful idea. I'd vote for it.

It has nothing to do with hating or liking children. There will always be children in this world. It has to do with couples who don't want children, or want to delay having children for over 3 years, or even if they WANT children and are unable to have children within 3 years of marriage will have their marriage ended. I have never heard of something so ridiculous and pathetic in my life. There are TONS of married couples that have kids 5, 10, 15 years after marriage. Basically, you can't even want to start a family 4 years after marriage with this bill.

[CathyBogart]

The bill is not meant to succeed...it is intended to be overthrown immediately, if they can even get it to pass....and that is highly unlikely. Heck, the odds that they will get the 270,000 more signatures they need to even put it on the ballot are very very slim.

This was posted on my childfree board, and even a couple in Washington who were already married said they would proudly divorce if this bill passed in order to help the cause.

Edit: The point they are trying to make is that the fundie argument that gay marriage is an invalid concept because the couples cannot procreate is absurd. I agree wholeheartedly. Is this the best tactic they could have used? Certainly not. But it's nice to see something being done that will raise some eyebrows, and bring more attention to the issue. It's already doing its job, people are talking about it EVERYWHERE.

[CathyBogart]

Posting after myself with more information...

Here's a letter from the WDMA regarding concerns about this bill backfiring...

We feel that the risk of backfire is very small. That could require that the initiative gets onto the ballot, is passed by the voters and is not struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Such a chain of events is extremely unlikely.

If I-957 gets passed, it will almost certainly be rejected by the courts. That would require that the courts reject the premise that marriage exists for the purpose of procreation and either invalidate the laws based on that premise or force the Legislature to change those
laws.

Assuming we get enough signatures to put I-957 to a public vote, the most likely scenario is that the initiative will fail by a very large margin. We can then hold up the vote as a referendum on the premise that marriage exists for the purpose of procreation and thereby goad the Legislature into changing the laws based on that premise and in effect order the courts to stop using that premise in future decisions. This will not be as effective as getting I-957 passed -- the court precedent will still exist and could still be used -- but we will still consider it a win.

Gregory Gadow
Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance
http://www.wa-doma.org

This is what they are responding to:

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.

This ruling is asinine, and I can definitely see why extreme measures are being taken to counter it.

It could also imply, that the state would have a compelling interest in restricting birth control - if their goal is to promote procreation as one of their "legitimate interests". It may sound far-fetched, but with this ruling in place it opens the door for litigation by the fundy extremists to argue for that very thing.

[cmayer31]

Here's a quote from the article posted: ""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.""

It's not meant to go in as a law and the group knew this going forward. It is meant to force people to think before they defend certain points of views with certain ideas.

I think it's pretty slick personally and I do hope that it causes some fundies to at least think a bit harder.

[Cataholic]

I understand the meaning behind the proposed legislation. And, if it gets people talking, well, publicity is publicity.

[Twisterdog]

...The point they are trying to make is that the fundie argument that gay marriage is an invalid concept because the couples cannot procreate is absurd. I agree wholeheartedly. Is this the best tactic they could have used? Certainly not. But it's nice to see something being done that will raise some eyebrows, and bring more attention to the issue. It's already doing its job, people are talking about it EVERYWHERE.

I agree. A marriage is a marriage whether or not a couple choose to/are able to have children.

[lady_zana]

My significant other and I have chosen to remain childless. Personally, I hope this bill makes people think. One of the main reasons I have heard in my struggle to promote gay rights is that marriage should be only between a man and a woman because they bear children. (It's not the only reason but it is a very common one.)

What right do my SO and I have to marry when others don't? Simply because I was born female and him male?

To me, my marriage and any marriage should be a celebration of love. It's not about having children or our sex/gender. Still, there are a lot of legal issues that come with marriage. There are many rights married people get that unmarried couples don't, including health benefits and hospital visitation rights. (These benefits, of course, not only include gay couples but unmarried hetersexual couples as well.)