Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

A (pro)creative initiative

Posted by Prema Polit at 2:34 PM on February 13, 2007.


Prema Polit: Homophobes get a dose of their own medicine.
47955story

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

So marriage is about procreation? That's what Washington state's Defense of Marriage Act suggests, and the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance means to make them follow through on it. Enter Initiative 957, which would require a couple to prove that they can have children before they are allowed to marry, and make them have a child within the first three years of marriage or face annulment.

This initiative is ridiculous, absurd, offensive, and most of the other words people are using to describe it. But this approach is not simply for attention, a good laugh, or the satisfaction of making opponents of same-sex marriage swallow some of their own bitter medicine (though I admit to quite a bit of glee at the latter). Initiative 957 may actually weaken Washington's DOMA, maybe even force the court to reconsider it.

At least this initiative may teach opponents of same-sex marriage a little lesson: If you use an empty excuse to justify discrimination, be sure you can live with having it enforced.

Washington's DOMA is one of a plethora of acts barring people of the same sex from marrying. The Andersen ruling last summer upheld the legislature's prerogative, stating that "DOMA is constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation."

Coming from this ruling, Initiative 957 isn't very far-fetched. After all, the inability for a woman to bear children can still be grounds for a divorce for some people, and certainly was much more common in the past. That's pretty traditional, right? So if people are fighting to preserve traditional marriage, why not stir that into their brew as well?

The Andersen ruling is a classic example of what is going on in many states. The Washington Supreme Court furthered a ridiculous reason for banning same-sex marriage under the guise of letting the legislature, the representatives of the people, decide such things. Of course, at the same time, the legislature points its finger at the court.

As long as both branches of government keep shirking on this human rights responsibility, as long as homophobia dominates in this country, I guess we need strategies like those of WDOM Alliance's to twist people's arms. Maybe, eventually, people will run out of excuses to not allow same-sex marriage.

Digg!

Tagged as: marriage, gay marriage, washington state, law

Prema Polit is an editorial intern at AlterNet.


Is Palin a Step Backwards for Women in Power?
Sarah Palin is a milestone, for we achieve true gender equality when an incompetent woman goes as far as an incompetent man.
Post by Suzanne Braun Levine. September 5, 2008.
Bush's White House Spying on Iraqi Prime Minister
White House Press Secretary Dana Perino wants to make it clear, the White House IS NOT denying spying on Maliki.
Post by Amanda. September 5, 2008.
Fox News: 'McCain's TV Commercials Contain ... Out-Right Lies'
Wait, we're seriously talking about Fox News? The Fox News?
Post by Steve Benen. September 5, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
It's got my support.
Posted by: Artkansas on Feb 13, 2007 4:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As someone who is childless and divorced it seems appropriate to me. Without kids, marriage is a curious institution indeed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's got my support. Posted by: boydranchitos
No Valid Arguments Against Gay Marriage
Posted by: thirdmg on Feb 13, 2007 5:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think I've heard all of the arguments against gay marriage, and not one of them makes sense. Either the "facts," or the logic, or both are wrong.

Initiative 957, for example, exposes the absurdity in the Andersen ruling that "limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation." If the argument is valid, then marriage should be limited only to those who are able and intend to have children.

But the logic of the ruling also absurdly implies that expanding marriage to same-sex couples is dangerous because it would somehow curtail or discourage procreation.

Exactly how? Are gays more likely to procreate if they can't marry? Are heterosexuals less likely to procreate if gays can marry?

Or is there a silly unspoken fear that same-sex marriage might become an attractive alternative for heterosexuals, thus removing them from the procreation pool? Isn't that what the alarmists mean when they claim that gay marriage will ultimately bring an end to civilization and even the species?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A well-reasoned post. Still... Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle
You realize this would screw heterosexual couples with infertility
Posted by: medstudgeek on Feb 13, 2007 7:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As well as old couples, etc. Really I think it's quite silly, even if you are a homophobe.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why recognize ANY marriage?
Posted by: Michael Robin on Feb 14, 2007 4:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The government should get out of the marriage business -- completely. Why is it anyone else's business if a person is married? Why does the government need to know?

When a married person dies in testate, it is easy to determine their heirs. Other than that, I can't see any reason why people shouldn't be able to conduct their private lives in private.

Marriage status is irrelevant to procreation as evidenced by the zillions of unwed mothers. Fathers have equal responsibility for their children whether married or not.

Marriage has virtually zero practical value beyond state-sponsored religious symbolism. The best solution is to simply eliminate marriage as a legal institution. End of fuss.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Right On Posted by: yesca
» RE: Why recognize ANY marriage? Posted by: bronx_girl
a novel idea
Posted by: ellie on Feb 14, 2007 4:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
wow! this law would put a time limit on a legal hetrosexual marriage, no kids within 3 years no matter what the reason, times up, you're single. divorce lawyers would go out of business but the wedding industry will clean up with a 3 year turn around in weddings! washington state will make a killing in marriage license fees, why even bother anymore in getting married in the first place?

this is insane!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: a novel idea Posted by: cmaciain
Annul my parents' marriage, then...
Posted by: nerdpony on Feb 14, 2007 7:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...I wasn't born until they had been married for 5 years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Now is the time to get down to business
Posted by: harlie on Feb 14, 2007 7:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
DOMA is superb.

It has the potential of moving the marriage discussion to a place that is no longer trivial. The blessing of gay unions can now fall into a larger category which includes hetrosexual marriages that are not focused on the care and nurture of children--marriage among the elderly, marriage of others who cannot bear children, marriage of people who do not wish to have children.

We have been living far too long in subservience to a medieval view of marriage which makes no sense in our world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NUTTY AS FRUITCAKES
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Feb 14, 2007 11:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What if the spouse is in the slammer serving 5-10 yrs. for possession of 1/16 of an ounce of pot. Can a person choose to wait or will conjugal visits be arranged to comply with the new law that says we must procreate. There are many loose ends here. Meantime, let's end the war. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: NUTTY AS FRUITCAKES Posted by: cmaciain
after menpause
Posted by: JSquercia on Feb 14, 2007 12:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to these IDIOTS I suppose that once woman reaches menopause she should HAVE to be divorced as she can no longer procreate . Of course no widow who is unable to procreate due to her age should ever be allowed to marry . Oh I forgot those women who have had Ovarian cancer must also be denied the right to marry .
Dear God these people make the Talliban seem reasonable .I only pray that they are unable to procreate because we have enough small minded idiots in this country .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: after menpause Posted by: cmaciain
A slap in the face
Posted by: bettyn on Feb 15, 2007 1:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
not only for gays but for heterosexual women such as myself who could not bear children due to a medical condition. I wanted kids but couldn't have them. I guess my marriage is null and void according to this nutty bill, especially NOW since I'm too old to have kids anyway. When does this ridiculous s**t end?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]