Gay Marriage | News | Washington

Washington Gay Marriage Supporters Play 'Procreation' Card

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance has filed an initiative in an attempt to expose the misguided philosophy behind the July 2006 State Supreme Court ruling that claimed a "legitimate state interest" allowed the Court to limit marriage to couples able to have and raise children together.

Wasahington_stateThe group plans three initiatives to raise discussion about the ruling, according to their website: "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."

The group has filed the first of the three, Initiative 957, and needs to gather 224,000 signatures by July 6 to get it on the ballot. Said WA-DOMA organizer Gregory Gadow: "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. 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."

You may have missed...
Washington State Court Rules Against Gay Marriage [tr]

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Cute, but marriage is a political institution, not a legal one.

    Posted by: anon | Feb 6, 2007 12:11:52 PM


  2. This is EXACTLY the kind of approach we need.
    I hope this becomes a model for gay rights strategies of the future.

    Posted by: rich | Feb 6, 2007 12:13:16 PM


  3. The problem is, they'll do it. They'll have the babies. And 2007 is the year I hate babies and children. And already I'm tired.

    Posted by: Mike B. | Feb 6, 2007 12:16:27 PM


  4. LOVE it! Brilliant. Fuck New York.

    Posted by: jeff | Feb 6, 2007 12:16:32 PM


  5. Juvenile and a waste of time, money, and energy.

    Posted by: LightningLad | Feb 6, 2007 12:18:22 PM


  6. Interesting tactic.

    Great for publicity and pushing the topic into many homes who would otherwise never think about or dicuss the issue

    Posted by: jimmyboyo | Feb 6, 2007 12:21:17 PM


  7. I just can't get excited about these "publicity stunt"-type constitutional challenges. What are they supposed to accomplish? They're certainly not going to change any hearts and minds. It's not like the people eager to deny equality to gays are *unaware* that their rationales are hollow--they simply don't *care* that their rationales are hollow.

    All these things do is make us look like naive pranksters, and trivialize the very difficult fights we still have ahead.

    Posted by: adamblast | Feb 6, 2007 12:21:19 PM


  8. I love it. If only we had bold and creative ideas like this from the people/blockheads at the national gay rights organizations.

    Posted by: Tom | Feb 6, 2007 12:24:45 PM


  9. Wow. This is actually brilliant. Kudos to them! I am so impressed!!

    Posted by: Cyd | Feb 6, 2007 12:39:32 PM


  10. Naive pranksters? When all the reasonable options are exhausted, you resort to whatever's left. It's a war of attrition. There really are no bad strategies. Just some that will bring about the changes we deserve before others. Pointing out their bigotry or the fact that they're running roughshod over the rights of another human being doesn't seem to be working.

    Posted by: Iko | Feb 6, 2007 12:41:04 PM


  11. Rather than being a mere publicity stunt, Adamblast, I think this might cause people to think about marriage from a different point of view. I think it might actually accomplish the task of changing hearts and minds. And I also think a bit of levity sometimes helps get the point across. Sure we need serious debate about the issue...but a little wit is also like the spoonful of sugar that helps the medicine go down. Oh, God. I just quoted Mary Poppins.

    Posted by: peterparker | Feb 6, 2007 12:42:58 PM


  12. awsome!

    Posted by: Jake | Feb 6, 2007 12:46:14 PM


  13. Hilarious! Make the f***ers eat their own!

    Posted by: Mona | Feb 6, 2007 12:55:02 PM


  14. I'll repeat what I said about this on Daily Kos:

    I really hope this thing makes the ballot because either way its a winning situation.

    If it makes the ballot and fails to be ratified, it acts as a trojan horse to get the Wazoo Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling. The Sovereign Voters of the State of Washington, in rejecting the ballot measure, will have told the state supreme court "You're full of shit. Now reconsider the case actually relying on, you know, REALITY."

    If it makes the ballot and wins, well, all the moralizing POS homobigots get a taste of their own denial of marriage tactics. Once the three years rolls around, not only will the initiative be repealed, but it'd almost certainly lead a more informed populace to grant full marriage rights to all couples, opposite sex and same sex.

    I also say its about damn time gay rights activists start turning the tables on these homobigots that keep putting forth these amendments and initiatives. I think this thing even manages to one-up the attempts by Texas Democratic Senators to added a clause into the Texas Hate Amendment that actually required married couples to have sex.

    Posted by: Craig | Feb 6, 2007 1:02:11 PM


  15. Of course you'd say that, Lightninglad.

    Posted by: Je | Feb 6, 2007 1:07:25 PM


  16. Fantastic! This is a tactic I've long been advocating as a dose of their own medicine. They should also seek to deny marriage rights to infertile couples and post-menopausal women.

    Posted by: Mateo Feo | Feb 6, 2007 1:12:51 PM


  17. Awesome.
    Make the str8 hypocrites eat their on ideological BS.

    Posted by: rob adams | Feb 6, 2007 1:14:58 PM


  18. That is really very nice.

    Posted by: Barney | Feb 6, 2007 1:25:25 PM


  19. This is brilliant.

    I was talking to my dad a few months back and said that I thought this would be the perfect way to approach the law with respect to the WA ruling. His eyes got a little wider than usual and noted that if something like that were to pass in his state, his marriage (he married a 2nd time 2 years ago after being divorced from my mom for 15), his marriage would be invalid.

    He quickly understood, but if it makes more people actually think about the state of their own marriage and their own incentives for getting married, then I say it's a WIN-WIN.

    Posted by: Rey | Feb 6, 2007 1:56:31 PM


  20. >>Of course you'd say that, Lightninglad.

    Oh, I'm sorry, JE.

    I guess what I should have said was "I wholeheartedly applaud gay rights organizations using the money given to them by gay rights supporters for paying signature gatherers for a ballot initiative that stands little chance of passing rather than putting that money to use pursuing legislative goals that are more likely to succeed."

    Now we're in ideological lockstep, just the way you like it.

    Posted by: LightningLad | Feb 6, 2007 2:02:06 PM


  21. On the one hand, I hope something like this gets far enough to make people understand. However, if I'm not mistaken, I know of a few fundies that would have no problems with that law being enacted.

    Posted by: gayjaybird | Feb 6, 2007 2:40:55 PM


  22. LL,

    Perhaps you're concerns would be warranted if the passage of the initiative was the primary purpose of this campaign--but it's clearly not WDMA's overall goal here. And your idea that gay rights groups are always obliged to play it safe in order to provide some sort of quantifiable return to their "investors" is just silly. This is a battlefield, not a board room; and no war has ever been won by combatants pursuing only the sure-shot victories. Historically, almost every small army that has prevailed against a much larger force has done so because they employed clever tactics and took some risks. We've spent too much time trotting out Mr. and Mr. Preppy Gay Middle America and their adorable adopted/surrogated tots to prove to America that "we're just like you!" America has weighed in on these obsequious displays—they don't care. It's time to change up our strategy, and this is a step in the right direction.

    Posted by: Tom | Feb 6, 2007 4:00:01 PM


  23. I see nothing juvenile in exposing the twisted logic of those who oppose gay marriage. Rational countries, like Canada, saw through the bogus procreation argument. This is one creative way to force people, especially apathetic heterosexuals, to think about what marriage is and isn't in 2007.

    Posted by: Ernie | Feb 6, 2007 4:13:37 PM


  24. This is a perfect tactic in the battle for recognition of our equal civil rights. Here's a repeat of the challenge I made to all Christians on Topix last night:

    "Okay Christians, if marriage is (as you say) intended solely for the purpose of procreation, then it's time for you to put up or shut up. You'd better be lining up in droves to back this ballot initiative because if you don't, you'll discredit everything you claim to be fighting for and prove to the entire world that you're nothing but a bunch of hypocritical, bigoted thugs. My bet is that you won't line up to support this and moreover, I bet you'll make the argument that having your marriage rights put up for a public vote is an absurd idea and ridiculous. Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, put up or shut up Christians, if it's okay for people to vote on my marriage rights it's just as equally valid for them to vote on yours. It's now or never Christians, time to put up or shut up..."

    From this point forward, the argument that marriage is between a man and a woman and is for the purpose of procreating (which is the key excuse Christians use) will no longer work because when they were given the opportunity to codify their supposed deeply held beliefs into law, they shrunk into the shadows proving their nothing but demagogs and hypocrites...

    Posted by: Robert In WeHo | Feb 6, 2007 4:16:23 PM



  25. Well, this is why I rarely give to gay rights organizations anymore. Personally, I think we could be doing something more productive with our time and money than spitefully sinking to the tactics of our enemies.

    But you feel free to throw your money away...

    Posted by: LightningLad | Feb 6, 2007 4:57:15 PM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «GLAAD demands Paris Hilton Apologize for Gay and Racial Slurs« «