http://www.komotv.com/news/local/5566451.html

Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced an initiative that would put a whole new twist on traditional unions between men and women: It would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriages annulled.

Initiative 957 was filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, which was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington’s ban on same-sex marriage. In that 5-4 ruling, the court found that state lawmakers were justified in passing the 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which restricts marriage to unions between a man and woman.

Under I-957, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriages would be subject to annulment

Of course its absurd.  The sponsors, the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, readily admit it.

"Absurd? Very," the group says on its Web site, which adds it is planning two more initiatives involving marriage and procreation.

But they feel that the state opened the door.

"But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions" underlying the Supreme Court’s ruling.

…

…Gadow noted that the Supreme Court’s majority decision specifically mentioned procreation throughout.

The opinion written by Justice Barbara Madsen concluded that "limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the state’s interests in procreation and encouraging families with a mother and father and children biologically related to both."

Gadow said the argument is unfair when you’re dealing with same-sex couples who are unable to have children together.

"What we are trying to do is display the discrimination that is at the heart of last year’s ruling," he said.

Merits of gay marriage aside, by framing the debate as involving procreation, the Starte Supreme Court opened the door to arguments about having children as well as the validity and relevence of heterosexual marriage.

But the more vocal opponents of gay marriage remind us that they have never used procreation as their banner:

Cheryl Haskins, executive director of Allies for Marriage & Children, agreed with Gadow’s group on at least one point about the initiative: "It’s absurd," she said 

Haskins said opponents of same-sex marriage "have never said that the sole purpose of marriage is procreation."

"When we talk about defending the institution of marriage, we’re talking about the union of a man and a woman," she said. "Some of those unions produce children and some of them don’t."

They have their critics:

Even the Legislature’s most prominent proponent of same-sex marriage, Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, said he thought the initiative was misguided. While the "absurdity" of the Supreme Court decision should be discussed, that discussion needs to take place in the Legislature, he said.

"I don’t think the initiative process should be used to determine the rights and protections of marriage," he said.

He missed the real issue.  The issue is that marriage regardless of where you stand on gay marriage is a serious subject. 

What I object to, even as I grudgingly acknowledge the group’s chuzpah, is the cheapening of the concept by the ridicule and trivilaity of the measures, and the subversion of the state’s initiative process for their little joke. They are not intended to be serious.

Gadow said that if the group’s initiatives were passed, the Supreme Court would be forced to strike them down as unconstitutional, which he believes would weaken the original ruling upholding the Defense of Marriage Act.

But he said he highly doubts any of the initiatives will pass, and that they are being done "in the spirit of political street theater."

"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."

Fair enough I suppose.  Debate is its own reward sometimes.  But when the debate is framed so absurdely, will it really offer any real debate?  I doubt it.

The measure’s backers said the two additional initiatives they plan would prohibit divorce or separation when a married couple has children, and would make having a child together the equivalent of marriage.

More then likely this will do nothing but energize the conservatives who will reject the humor and obvious absurdity and launch a new campaign defending marriage.  Literalism is dangerous.

In that regard the conservatives are their own worst enemy, and these groups enjoy exploiting that.

And there is also the fact that heterosexual couples have not been kind to marriage. Many people on all sides of the debate point out that a better argument would be in making marrage a more responsible institution in general.  I would like to see conservatives deal with that more effectively.  Maybe gay marriage would do that, though I doubt it would change that aspect at all. 

In Canada they legalized gay marriage, and in less then a year they had their first gay divorce.  Maybe if the  gays had to deal with pre-nups, divorce lawyers, judges, family law courts, mediation, property settlements and my personal favorite, alimony, they would say no thanks.

Personally I still favor divesting the government of all control in marrage.

Rather then redefine marriage, it would be nice to fix it.  And step one is getting the state out of the business of controlling it in the first place.  Culling the lawyers would be step two.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS