08 Feb 07
Originally posted by richjohnsonDoes not seem likely that even the proponents really care if this gets passed. It is all for effect in the gay marriage debate.
This is not a bill put forward by any member of the state legislature. In Washington state anyone who collects enough signatures can put an initiative on the ballot. As stated above, there have recently been "the spate of anti-gay initiatives that have been on the ballot", and this is apparently a response by the gay community, to point out the fact th ...[text shortened]... illegitimate distinction to use as the basis for treating people differently under the law.
08 Feb 07
Originally posted by WulebgrThink of the government as schizophrenic. With collective will of the people consisting of blocks which are in agreement only rarely (and never in full agreement).
Think of the government as the collective will of the people. How do we benefit from defining or restricting marriage?
08 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by kirksey957hahah thats funny..
I wish there was a law in my state that you couldn't get married until you had a job and that you would get a tax deduction for not having children.
i almost like that....
it would probably make the world better
09 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by richjohnsonThis is my understanding too. But Christian conservatives would benefit from it too.
This is not a bill put forward by any member of the state legislature. In Washington state anyone who collects enough signatures can put an initiative on the ballot. As stated above, there have recently been "the spate of anti-gay initiatives that have been on the ballot", and this is apparently a response by the gay community, to point out the fact th illegitimate distinction to use as the basis for treating people differently under the law.
09 Feb 07
Originally posted by techsouthYes, it is for effect. The effect is to demonstrate that some of the arguments for keeping the status quo on marriage aren't fully consistent with reality.
Does not seem likely that even the proponents really care if this gets passed. It is all for effect in the gay marriage debate.
Locally, it really irked me when Christian groups argued against allowing gays to adopt, because the argument was basically that children should have both a father and a mother. All I could think was, "well, why didn't you all kick up an enormous fuss when they allowed SINGLE people to adopt?".
09 Feb 07
1 edit
The post that was quoted here has been removedThe process that will make this idea law
1.Initiative sponsors must gather signatures from registered voters equal to 8% of those that voted in the last election for governor.
2. If they succeed, it is placed on the November ballot.
3. If a majority vote yes, it becomes law.
(4. At that point there may be court challenges in Washington State courts, or Federal District courts, and then on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and only upon appeal from there to the U.S. Supreme Court.)
Since 1912, well over 700 initiatives have been filed with the Secretary of State. ~16% have been certified as having sufficient signatures. Less than half of those have passed.
09 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by WulebgrThis Initiative is a response to a decision by the Washington State Supreme Court. See the website for the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, sponsors of I-957. http://www.wa-doma.org/
Why should the state have any concern for marriage?
From their website
The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance seeks to defend equal marriage in this state by challenging the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling on Andersen v. King County. This decision, given in July 2006, declared that a “legitimate state interest” allows the Legislature to limit marriage to those couples able to have and raise children together. Because of this “legitimate state interest,” it is permissible to bar same-sex couples from legal marriage.
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.