i loves me a good satire, but i heard once that something like 30% of americans understand satire. the rest will yelp "rush is right! the gays are attacking marriage!"

i hope this measure makes its point, but i've lost massive amounts of faith in the intelligence of the american electorate in the last seven years.

That isn't really parody. That's an actual effort at getting a measure passed. And this is how stupid legislation becomes law. Chuckle if you want, but by all means don't sign the dang petition!

I like the idea---if you are going to go by the bible--and they say marriage is for man and woman to produce children (not a contract that helps w/ your taxes or helps w/ health care) then you should not be able to marry w/out having kids. In fact, god must be kinda upset if he thinks your doing the deed w/out intending on raising a family.

Stupid legislation or not, it makes a good point. If it were to become law, however unlikely, the courts would immediately strike it down as unconstitional -- along with their stupid argument against gay marriage.

I've been saying this for years. My wife and I don't have children -- and we find it insulting when people argue that the State has an interest in preserving marriage for procreation.

Even the Catholic Church was willing to see past that argument when my wife and I got married. (She's Catholic, I'm not.)

In point of fact, the State's real interest should be in limiting procreation before we procreate ourselves into extinction.

So, no couple should be allowed to celebrate a 10th, 20th, or 25th wedding anniversary unless they have kids? How about my young relatives who found they were unable to have children themselves and so they adopted 3 kids? Those kids shouldn't have been adopted and have a Mom and Dad because if a couple can't have kids naturally, they shouldn't be married?

The sponsors of this idea need to get a life! How would they provide homes for children needing adoptive and foster homes? Or don't those kids matter?

I think it's hilarious and makes a great point. Of course this is absurd, that's the point!

AHHHHHHHHHHHHH, some of you people are INCREDIBLE morons! HAHAHAHA. They have no intelligence whatsoever! What has happened to our education system. They really think this is serious. Well, LT, that is exactly the point. What ABOUT the couple that can't have kids naturally, so they adopt three (I'm talking about my gay neighbors down the street). Just to enlighten you a little bit, the point of this initiative is to demonstrate to people like you how silly the argument that "marriage is solely for procreation" is. That is the reasoning used by the Washington Supreme Court for denying gays the right to marry. Straights who can't have kids should be able to marry, and so should gays. However, if gays are to be denied marriage because they can't have kids, then so should straights.

parody or not, this is a complete waste of time and dollars. while i completely support the right for gays to marry, they aren't scoring any points with their fight by making a mockery out of the legislative process. we already know when it comes to marriage the system is flawed. let's not make it even more so.

Well good for Washington, what a creative way to end the penalty tax for a married couple when both are working!

Of course, since this will cut down on "couples", it means that the social security for non-working newly named "non-spouses" will get messed up. My Uncle Stan's account won't be available to Aunt Fern - they never had kids.

Of course, this means no alimony for these forcibly divorced couples.

Of course - this is all a backdoor into the whole debate about how much government belongs in our private lives in the arena of relationships and mutual agreements.

I do love the absurdity of this.

Yes, yes, yes, yes! Hooray!

This reveals the underlying falsehood in the argument about gay marriage and its effects on kids.

If the supposed problem is the effect of gay parents on kids, attack adoption, but don't attack the marriage. Why don't the anti-gay forces do this? Does their polling demonstrate that it's a bad idea? Or is it simply that they're using an argument that polls well (protect the kids) instead of an argument that doesn't (stop people who love each other from getting married).

I love this! If I lived in Washington, I'd definitely sign it.

I doubt it could pass, but I wonder how many religious nutjobs would vote for it on the whole "marriage is about procreation" theory?

I do hope they can find enough signatures to make the ballot.

they say marriage is for man and woman to produce children (not a contract that helps w/ your taxes or helps w/ health care) then you should not be able to marry w/out having kids

Hm, maybe the idea that marriage is "a contract that helps w/ your taxes or helps w/ health care" needs to wind up in the trash, too.

Anyway, the initiative is a fantastic bit of satire.

What happens at menopause, automatic annulment? I had my nut cut twenty years ago because I figured four kids were enough. What about that? What of couples who choose to not have children.

Don't mistake me, I think this a great way to make the point, but in the end it is but more ammunition for the christfascists and the fox noise machine to beat us about the head with.

One of the elements of good satire is that it has as its goal to point out, and then point the way out of, some societal injustice, and do so with some wit and élan.

This initiative fits the bill in spades.

Three Cheers!

Here's why this doesn't work.

Evangelicals don't oppose gay marriage because gays can't have children. They oppose gay marriage becuase they think homosexuality is yucky (and a sin).

Right wing evangelicals aren't going to get the joke. They're just going to consider this initiative another attack on the institution of marriage by the homosexual community. Which will in turn, increase funding for anti-gay organizations, and further diminish the ability of Gay-rights group to influence the electorate.

The initiative is a funny idea; and I like the spirit behind it. But, in the end, I think it's counterproductive.

“Evangelicals don't oppose gay marriage because gays can't have children.”

Yes they do – at least that’s part of it. And Washington’s Supreme Court said explicitly that the state has the right to limit marriage because of its interest in encouraging procreation. And if you spend some time listening to the far right, they will fall back on the “natural order” argument; in other words, they can discriminate against homosexuals because they violate natural (as laid down by their God) law.

“They oppose gay marriage becuase they think homosexuality is yucky (and a sin).”

To be sure, this is true as well, though I’m not sure those are reasonable reasons to discriminate against gays. And they said much the same thing fifty years ago to support anti miscegenation laws.

"Right wing evangelicals aren't going to get the joke. They're just going to consider this initiative another attack on the institution of marriage by the homosexual community. Which will in turn, increase funding for anti-gay organizations, and further diminish the ability of Gay-rights group to influence the electorate."

Anything that revels the absurdity of the far right is okay by me. I really don’t care if they get the joke; there is something to be said for satire as a tool of change, and this initiative seems to me to be precisely that. But you’re right, they won’t get the joke – and that alone says a lot about who we’re fighting.

Right wing evangelicals aren't going to get the joke.

Doesn't matter. The purpose of this sort of tactic is to spur discussion among thinking people. Right wing evangelicals aren't the target.

If the supposed problem is the effect of gay parents on kids, attack adoption, but don't attack the marriage. Why don't the anti-gay forces do this? Does their polling demonstrate that it's a bad idea? Or is it simply that they're using an argument that polls well (protect the kids) instead of an argument that doesn't (stop people who love each other from getting married).

Betsey:

The anti-gay forces have attacked gays and their ability to adopt. I am a lesbian and a foster and adoptive parent. Even though the state of Oregon recognizes my legal relationship to my children, the state of Oklahoma has decided not to. Currently the Oklahoma law is being challenged in the courts but if I were to travel there with my family I would have no legal rights as a parent. In the state of Florida my partner and I are not allowed to adopt. Other states are trying to do the same.

In Oregon and Washington, the general population is more open to the idea of our family. Most voters in both states would like to see some sort of legal recognition of our relationship even if they do not want it to be called marriage. Remember how the yes on 36 folks said M36 was all about marriage and not about civil unions (in some places they said they would be OK with civil unions)? Of course now that 36 passed and there is a chance that the legislature and governor might enact civil unions they are going against their word and fighting it.

The anti-gay forces know how far to push and at this time they know in the Pacific NW not to attack adoption rights. Even so, I was very happy on election night to not have Saxton in charge of DHS. As a foster parent trying to adopt a child in my care, it scared me to think of who that man might of owed and how he might have paid them back.

Back to this measure. I think it is hilarious and most likely it will go no where. At the very least it is raising awareness and keeping the discussion going. It reminds me of a year ago when an Ohio legislator introduce a bill denying gays the right to foster or adopt kids in state care. Another legislator in response introduced a bill not would deny registered republicans the ability to foster or adopt kids in state care. Now there is legislation I can get behind.

Jami, why limit your disappointment with the last seven years? It has been mostly the same story for the past 50 years...

The petition is good political theatre, very wittily conceived (no pun intended).

However, I don’t see why it is absurd to assert that the state has a legitimate interest in marriage as an institution whose most important purpose is procreation.

That doesn’t mean government should oppress people who can’t have children. But without children there is no state.

Washington state isn't arguing that it has an interest in marriage, but that it has a legitimate interest in limiting marriage to those who can have children.

This initiative points out that line of argument may have consequences beyond prohibiting same-gender marriage.

And I didn't mean to imply that I support limiting gay adoption, just that anti-gay marriage people inappropriately conflate the right to marry with parenthood, trying to use people's confusion over the latter to restrict equal rights on the former.

This may start quite an argument between the slightly extreme right and the extremely extreme right. There are plenty of right-wing Xians who don't like homosexuality or the idea of homosexuals marrying, but there are also plenty who believe in full-on theocracy with the bible they only law of the land. The latter would probably be happy with the proposed law, while the former would probably find it a bit "extreme". I can get behind something that causes a falling out among authoritarian religionists.

The initiative is clever but there’s no reason that the line of argument in question would have the consequences suggested. Marriage has traditionally been about reproduction but the government has never persecuted people for failing to have children. Marriage has traditionally also been a haven for people who want to legitimize their relationship even if they get together after child-bearing days. Since it’s not illegal to cohabit, that’s not an issue anymore.

In other words, marriage has always been about children, but the institution (or the state the regulated it) was tolerant of a small minority of people who weren’t able or willing to have children.

It doesn’t seem inconsistent to say that individuals who are categorically unable to reproduce don’t fit the paradigm. However, one could certainly also argue that, if it was deemed in the interest of the state to place as many children in adoptive homes as possible, and if same sex parents were unlikely to cause any harm to those children’s development or their interest in general, then the state could identify an interest in bringing people who categorically cannot reproduce together within the marriage paradigm.

However that question gets resolved, the interest of the state in marriage as a locus of procreation is clear. It is of relatively little consequence to the state that two adults live together happily. It is of great consequence to the state that there are future generations to replace the present ones, and that they are raised in such a way as to maximize their chances of success.

OK...late to the party...but here goes:

1. LT: To your young relatives: Tough luck on them. I would venture to say that the State of Washington has chosen not to recongnize their marriage. They get to join a long list of folks in Washington state in the same boat. You have PERFECTLY illustrated the ridiculous stance taken by the Supremes in Washington.

2. "In other words, marriage has always been about children, but the institution " poppycock! Marriage has been about PROPERTY. Nothing more, nothing less. Children do figure into that as a potential inheritor of said property, but it is only in the eyes of idiots that marriage is considered to "encourage procreation." Biology encourages procreation. Biology doesn't need a piece of paper to justify itself. Look at history, and you will that biology handles itself rather nicely without such "sanctity." -- granted either by a church, a government, or otherwise.

I say go for it. Nothing like a little bitter medicine to piss off Supremes.

Using this initiative just to make a point for the cause is a slap in the face to couples who've tried but cannot have children. Not only must these couples live through the emotional ordeal of fertility issues, now they're forced to listen to a polital debate that belittles them. Do these couples (who've already suffered a loss) really need the government threatening to separate them into lives of solitude. It isn't enough that these activists have acknowledged that the initiative is absurd it will not pass. Find another way to debate the issue without attacking our vulnerable neighbors. This attack is an insult and waste of taxpayers' dollars. Activism on this level disgusts me.

The lack of understanding by folks like MrsB, Thomas Ware, LT and others is stunning, but not surprising. They're so wrapped up in their own prejudices that they cannot get angry at the Oregon Supreme Court ruling that the state has "a legitimate interest in preserving marriage for procreation".

Read the next line s l o w l y. Take your time. It's ok, we'll wait...

This initiative is aimed squarely at the Court, and that particular line of reasoning in the ruling. If the state is preserving marriage for procreation, and those who cannot procreate cannot get married, then those who have gotten married and have either through choice or chance haven't procreated, well then, their marriage is null and void.

Simple enough.

Isn't this a little like swatting a fly with a shotgun? I mean, come on - let's be realistic. If a husband or his wife are physically unable to give birth to a child, why would we tell them their marriage is at risk? Yes, you can adopt, try the medical procedures, etc. I can't even come up with the words to describe how absolutely rediculous this proposal is. Who ever came up with this should be sweeping the floors at McDonald's.

This is the most absurd legal proposals I have ever heard. Whoever came up with this proposal deserves a slap in the face. Isn't it a constitutional right to have children or not to have children? I have been married for 5 years to my husband and have decided not to have kids because I see it as placing too much stress on a marriage in terms of finances and related issues. I've watched friends and family members become stressed-out basket cases after having kids, and it frightens me. I'm also overwhelmed by all the horrible things going on in the world right now, and don't feel it's right to bring someone into such a violent, unstable world. This is my right! What about couples who physically can't have kids due to infertility? This law would effectively shun them for something that's not their fault? Absolutely ridiculous.

I just hope the initiative passes. I'd rather renounce to be married than seeing these activists winning with this mockery. Two men cannot have children, neither two women. Whenever two men or two women are able to have children by natural conception, I will accept homosexual marriage and even request it to the government...meanwhile it is just a waste of time and tax dollars.