Married Couples to Show Proof of Procreation (NRR)

SwayzeSwayze 14,705 Posts
edited February 2007 in Strut Central
Taken from Boing BoingThe 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.... 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; andmake it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits.Link to WA-Doma

  Comments


  • oripsorips 238 Posts
    Proof of procreation either equals child born or youtube video, possibly?

    This proposed law sounds ridiculous. What about couples who cannot conceive through procreation?

  • faux_rillzfaux_rillz 14,343 Posts

    This proposed law sounds ridiculous.

    It's intentionally ridiculous--it's intended to highlight the absurdity of the Anderson decision.

  • twoplytwoply Only Built 4 Manzanita Links 2,917 Posts
    What about couples who cannot conceive through procreation?

    Exactly. It will never work.

  • twoplytwoply Only Built 4 Manzanita Links 2,917 Posts

    This proposed law sounds ridiculous.

    It's intentionally ridiculous--it's intended to highlight the absurdity of the Anderson decision.

    Doh! I been had.

  • hemolhemol 2,578 Posts

    This proposed law sounds ridiculous.

    It's intentionally ridiculous--it's intended to highlight the absurdity of the Anderson decision.

    Catch the State with its foot in its mouth. Someone is going to catch some flack for passing a ruling on those grounds.

  • faux_rillzfaux_rillz 14,343 Posts

    This proposed law sounds ridiculous.

    It's intentionally ridiculous--it's intended to highlight the absurdity of the Anderson decision.

    Catch the State with its foot in its mouth. Someone is going to catch some flack for passing a ruling on those grounds.

    There is no such thing as "passing a ruling," hemold.

  • hemolhemol 2,578 Posts


    There is no such thing as "passing a ruling," hemold.

    Dude, you clearly aren't in the end-zone.
Sign In or Register to comment.