January 26, 2007
Seattle, WA – The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance (WA-DOMA) announced on Thursday that their proposed initiative to make procreation a requirement for legal marriage has been accepted by the Secretary of State and assigned the serial number 957. The initiative has been in the planning stages since the Washington Supreme Court ruled last July that the state’s Defense of Marriage Act was constitutional.
“For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation,” said WA-DOMA organizer Gregory Gadow in a printed statement. “The Washington Supreme Court echoed that claim in their lead ruling on Andersen v. King County. The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine. If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who can not or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage. And this is what the Defense of Marriage Initiative will do.”
Mr. Gadow also stated, “Our agenda is to shine a very bright light on the injustice and prejudice that underlie the Andersen decision by giving that decision the full force of law.
If passed by Washington voters, I-957 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.
This initiative is the first of three that WA-DOMA has planned for upcoming years. The other two would prohibit divorce or separation when a married couple has children together, and make having a child together the equivalent of marriage.
The text of I-957 and further information about the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance can be found at the group’s website: www.WA-DOMA.org.
aaarrrrrRRRRRRGGHH!!!
i live in washington state. 25 years ago, i had a child with a woman who i never married, and who is now psychotic and in the state mental institution… i subsequently had a vasectomy, and have been legally married to another woman for 10 years, and we don’t plan on having any children. if this law passes, it means that my current marriage will be annulled, and my previous relationship with the psychotic “hose-beast-from-hell” will automatically become a “marriage” for all legal purposes… and if the DOMA gets their way, we would then be made criminals for getting “divorced” after having our son, 25 years after the fact!!! also, i might be guilty of polygamy, because, while “married” to the psychotic hose-beast-from-hell, i carried on an “illegal relationship” with my wife!!! where’s the “justice” in that???
much as i love washington state, it’s time to move elsewhere. the people here are just too stupid for me any more!
That’s just wrong…
As it was explained to me by a good friend tonight (in an effort to keep me from fainting) it’s not that anyone actually expects the law to pass, but if it did, the grounds on which it was overturned (hopefully like a hot cake!) would give leverage in terms of what defined ‘marriage’ and give tax breaks based on ‘has in fact spawned a future taxpayer’ rather than ‘committed to another human’. If the taxes were based on ‘parent’ rather than ‘partner’ that should allow gay couples raising children to get that break as well (and take it from snotty stylish couples who don’t like kids and won’t have to feed so don’t need a huge tax return because they’d probably just buy snooty designer shoes anyway 😉
Or something like that, I couldn’t hear all that well over the crackling of the paper bag I was breathing into ;).
if this law actually passes, that’s precisely what it will mean… and then, presumably, if you move out of state with your baby, but not your baby’s father, and you decide, for whatever reason, to get married to someone else, you could potentially get arrested for polyandry.
Does that mean that the state could one day decide that, although I chose (all planned – space shuttles have had less planning) to have a child but never marry, *poof* I am legally married to my baby-daddy ex-boyfriend?
(shudder)
It for certain won’t pass as this is a “mommy state” through and through. They won’t do anything that might make it harder for mommies to perjure themselves, suborn perjury in others and generally stomp all over any perceived notions of a “justice” system when they decide they’d rather move in with someone else and have their ex pay the bills.
As far as people here being just too stupid I happily point out the recent anti-smoking law. So, you’re like, surprised?
i seem to recall reading that that half of all christian marriages end in divorce, and i hope that half of the “christians” in DOMA realised that when they were writing up this travesty. but knowing my neighbours like i do, i’m inclined to think that a substantial majority of them would actually vote for such a proposition without regard to what kind of chaos would ensue.
and, personally, the thought of having to lose my sweetie and “get back together” with the psycho-hose-beast-from-hell because of my now-25-year-old son is enough to make me think that the time to move somewhere else is before it comes to pass… 8/
This is clearly not meant to be a serious law – it won’t ever pass, it’s just being done to stir shit up. I think it’s kind of awesome, actually – a bit of legal “taste of your own medicine” for conservatives.
(And seriously, don’t worry, it won’t pass.)
My real dad divorced my mother. He was still in the british army and got posted to Shape in Belgium where he met an american servicewoman and got married to her. They moved to Washington State upon her getting out of the army and she got a job helping setup the new version of Borstals (juvenile detention) there and he became a househusband, doing a lot of fishing and generally enjoying retirement.
There was a riot one day in the Borstal, his wife was held hostage, beaten and abused by a juvenile.
They thought the place was too much and moved back to England!!
Of course, that sort of thing can happen anywhere, but I suppose it is another example of political choices going wrong for the everyman.
that’s completely insane, and will not pass. don’t stress it. the fact it even got that far is bad enough; that’s where it stops.