Wow, I’m super stoked in this way of going about things. I’ve always thought it so strange how in a country founded on the very basis of separation of church and state that a religious argument over marriage can even be argued in any sort of legal situation. Marriage itself, however, is such a religious matter I also wonder at why we’ve made it so fundmental to our legal and economic systems. Yet we have. So if it is a social and not religious insitution I am for gay marriage, of course. That’s why this argument being put forth by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance is so smart.
Under the measure, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children in order to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriage would be subject to annulment.
All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized" and people in those marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.
If one argument the right has against gay marriages is children this should be fine with them. But of course it’s not fine. It’s horrible. Why would I deny any Romeo and Juliet from contractually fullfilling their love. I wouldn’t.
According to the group’s Web site, organizers hope that the supreme court will strike down the initiatives as unconstitutional, weakening the basis for the same-sex marriage ban.
Absolutely brilliant. I can’t wait to see this one play out.
