Sign In
Create Account
Spoiler
Gay Marriage Group Proposes New Initiative
By Roselyn James
The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance has introduced an initiative which would change the definition of marriage in Washington State. Initiative 957, also known as The Defense of Marriage Initiative, would require couples to procreate within three years of marriage. If couples fail to provide proof of procreation in that time period, the marriage would be annulled. Additionally, once the marriage is annulled, the couples who failed to have children would be subject to fines and penalties for any marriage benefits received.
Initiative 957 proposes two other changes to Washington's current marriage laws. The first would make it illegal to divorce or separate once children are born. The second would make the birth of the first child within the marriage the equivalent of a legal marriage ceremony.
The initiative is in response to the Washington State Supreme Court's July 2006 ruling on Andersen v. King County. The ruling bans same-sex marriage and allows legislature to limit marriage to couples who are able to have and raise children.
The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance calls their own initiative absurd. "But there is a rational basis for this absurdity," they state on their website. "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."
They aren't the only ones calling the initiative absurd. According to CBS.com, Cheryl Haskins, executive director of Allies for Marriage & Children, also calls it absurd. Haskins is quoted as saying opponents of same-sex marriage "have never said that the sole purpose of marriage is procreation."
The Defense of Marriage Alliance begs to differ. On January 25, 2007, Gregory Gadow, who sponsors Initiative 957, stated, "In their ruling, the Supreme Court claimed a 'legitimate state interest' in defining marriage exclusively for the purpose of procreation and child-rearing. The justices then used this interest to declare that same-sex couples are properly barred from marriage because they are incapable of procreating."
He goes on to say their agenda is "to shine a very bright light on the injustice and prejudice that underlie the Andersen decision by giving that decision the full force of law."
In a January 26 press release, The Defense of Marriage Alliance announced that the initiative was accepted by the Washington Secretary of State. In order to get onto the November ballot, the initiative needs 224,880 valid signatures by July 5.
By Roselyn James
The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance has introduced an initiative which would change the definition of marriage in Washington State. Initiative 957, also known as The Defense of Marriage Initiative, would require couples to procreate within three years of marriage. If couples fail to provide proof of procreation in that time period, the marriage would be annulled. Additionally, once the marriage is annulled, the couples who failed to have children would be subject to fines and penalties for any marriage benefits received.
Initiative 957 proposes two other changes to Washington's current marriage laws. The first would make it illegal to divorce or separate once children are born. The second would make the birth of the first child within the marriage the equivalent of a legal marriage ceremony.
The initiative is in response to the Washington State Supreme Court's July 2006 ruling on Andersen v. King County. The ruling bans same-sex marriage and allows legislature to limit marriage to couples who are able to have and raise children.
The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance calls their own initiative absurd. "But there is a rational basis for this absurdity," they state on their website. "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."
They aren't the only ones calling the initiative absurd. According to CBS.com, Cheryl Haskins, executive director of Allies for Marriage & Children, also calls it absurd. Haskins is quoted as saying opponents of same-sex marriage "have never said that the sole purpose of marriage is procreation."
The Defense of Marriage Alliance begs to differ. On January 25, 2007, Gregory Gadow, who sponsors Initiative 957, stated, "In their ruling, the Supreme Court claimed a 'legitimate state interest' in defining marriage exclusively for the purpose of procreation and child-rearing. The justices then used this interest to declare that same-sex couples are properly barred from marriage because they are incapable of procreating."
He goes on to say their agenda is "to shine a very bright light on the injustice and prejudice that underlie the Andersen decision by giving that decision the full force of law."
In a January 26 press release, The Defense of Marriage Alliance announced that the initiative was accepted by the Washington Secretary of State. In order to get onto the November ballot, the initiative needs 224,880 valid signatures by July 5.
Associated Content.com
Back to top
