File in the “Calling Your Bluff” folder…
6 months ago, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that marriage equality for gays and lesbians doesn’t need to be granted by the state because marriage is about procreation and GLBT people can’t procreate (never mind adoption or donors, etc.). Well, there is a new initiative proposed.
So, even though the WA state constitution says this:
No law shall be passed granting to any citizen … privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.
The WA state justices said that since marriage is about procreation with children in homes headed by the biological parents (huh? adoption?) and GLBT don’t procreate:
The Legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by children’s biological parents,
So, if marriage really is about procreation, then the citizens should support this initiative…
Gay rights activists have submitted an initiative that would require children in marriages.
This initiative would require couples to prove they can procreate. If they don’t ’show proof’ of procreation in 3 years the marriage would be annulled. Out-of-state marriages would not be recognized if there is no procreation or proof of intent.
It’s calling the bluff.
I’m sure there will be a few people backpedalling on that one.
About The Author
I’m not sure how I feel about this… publicly, it makes an excellent point about their really shaky and thinly veiled reason for denying us the first time… but you know that the social conservatives/fundies are going to latch onto that as some sort of empirical ‘proof’ that the LGBTQ community is attempting to undermine the sanctity of marriage and there may be a lot of otherwise neutral heterosexual couples who will feel that their marriage may be threatened and will polarize to the side of the social conservatives and/or fundies.
Reply to nonsequiturwhen i first read what you wrote, what went through my mind was “wow.. that’s such a pointed and effective way of showing just how absurd their reasoning is!”
Reply to SilphYou know, I thought this too. Still do to some extent.
On the other hand, it probably won’t ever make it to the actual ballot stage (it takes a lot of signatures and money). And I think it will make some people at least stop and think… oh yeah… marriage isn’t about just having children biologically. On one parenting board I frequent (about 300 active users, all moms
but me, 95% straight 
.. a lot already have made that jump because of this.
That said, one of my worries is spending the time and effort and money to get it passed, time and money that could be spent elsewhere (like getting civil unions), but maybe it will work
Reply to Trey