[Vision2020] WA Initiative 1-957 - DOMA

[JeanC]

On 3/2/07, Megan Prusynski <megan at meganpru.com> wrote:
> Wow, I am shocked that something this backwards and discriminatory would
> even be brought up these days... disgusting. It will never pass, hopefully,
> because that just sounds like fascism.
>
> By that initiative, if I were to marry my boyfriend (assuming we lived in
> WA), we'd have to have kids after 3 years or forfeit our marriage?!? So the
> state would be not only contributing to overpopulation, but controlling
> people's lives. We're not sure I want to have kids, and it sure as hell
> isn't gonna be within 3 years. That is just ridiculous (almost makes me
> think it's a joke!)....

>From the website:

"The way we are challenging Andersen is unusual: using the initiative,
we are working to put the Court's ruling into law. We will do this
through three initiatives. 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.

Absurd? Very. But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By
floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many
misguided assumptions which make up the Andersen ruling. By getting
the initiatives passed, we hope the Supreme Court will strike them
down as unconstitutional and thus weaken Andersen itself. And at the
very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives who
have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of
procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric."

Jean C