Nonsensical laws: Not just for gays anymore

With enough signatures from Washington voters, Initiative 957 might be the next Defense of Marriage proposition to be put to voters next election. 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

If the Washington State supreme court can deny same-sex partners marriage rights on the basis of being unable to biologically procreate, then it’s only logical that all couples who can’t have kids be denied those benefits also, right?

I wouldn’t be surprised if it were, but this proposition isn’t sponsored by some fundie Christian group. It’s being put forth by the gay-rights group WA-DOMA to highlight the hypocrisy of the Supreme Court ruling and indeed of all “defense of marriage” laws around the country. The initiative has no chance of passing, of course, but if it gets on the ballot the point is made. And (to paraphrase a commenter on Slog), if hell freezes over and it does get on the ballot and pass then it will just have to be declared unconstitutional … along with the gay-marriage ban. So sign on!

(Thanks to Carol for the tip.)

1 thought on “Nonsensical laws: Not just for gays anymore”

  1. Our household nonbreeder attitude is really going to cut in to our we got married for green cards agenda, eh? I’m looking forward to the upcoming annulment ceremony, maybe this time we’ll register at Crate and Barrel!

    I haven’t looked to deep in to this – does the proposed bill say “can’t” or “won’t”?

Comments are closed.