This is Both Brilliant ... and Scary

[NWFlyer 2]

Apparently there was a court ruling in the Washington State Supreme Court last year that said the following:

Quote

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.

So there's a group (the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance) putting out a ballot initiatve that requires the following:

Quote

If passed by Washington voters, the Defense of Marriage Initiative would:

* add the phrase, “who are capable of having children with one another” to the legal definition of marriage;
* require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;
* require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as “unrecognized;”
* establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and
* make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits.

The group's point is to spotlight the absurdity of such a definition of marriage ... but what if there are some voters who take this shit seriously?

Even though I've lived for 10 years now in a state with an active initiative and referendum process, it still boggles the mind some of the stuff that voters will vote for. Guarantee this will get a few yes votes.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[steveorino 7]

Quote

* require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as “unrecognized;”

What does THAT mean??

steveOrino

[mnealtx 0]

That IS absurd... have a kid w/in 3 years or the marriage is annulled?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

That IS absurd... have a kid w/in 3 years or the marriage is annulled?

That's the point.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[Andy9o8 2]

As an aside, I'd observe that the court's giving credence to "a legitimate state interest allowing a state's legislature to limit marriage to those couples able to have and raise children together" could logically provide the basis to prohibit marriage by people who (a) are sterile or otherwise incapable of procreation, or (b) who have a disability that would impede their ability to raise children. So, logically, all those families where all the kids are adopted - where in many cases it's because there's some sort of sterility, motility or "plumbing" issue - would be unwelcome in Washington.

So yes, it's a good vehicle to show how absurd the court is being.

People often act so shocked when a court does something like this. But, after 20+ years making a living in this racket, I can tell you: judges are fulla shit all the time.

[billvon 3,120]

>have a kid w/in 3 years or the marriage is annulled?

Yep. If the state says it wishes to restrict marriage to those who can raise kids, then not raising kids would surely be grounds for denying marriage rights.

" . . . but wait . . . we just wanted to go after the gays . . ."

[NCclimber 0]

What is the criteria for having a proposed initiative accepted by the Secretary of State and assigned a serial number?

Is it anything more having a proposal that would be legal and filling out the required paperwork?

[goofyjumper 0]

The sad thing is that people who don't pay attention to the details of these proposed laws will just see the basics of it and vote it in.

-----------------
I love and Miss you so much Honey!
Orfun #3 ~ Darla

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

What is the criteria for having a proposed initiative accepted by the Secretary of State and assigned a serial number?

Is it anything more having a proposal that would be legal and filling out the required paperwork?

Yep, I believe it's just the paperwork at this point. To actually get it on the ballot, they need to get something like 225,000 signatures of registered voters.

Edit to add quote from the alliance:

Quote

The first of our initiatives, which would make procreation a requirement for legal marriage in Washington, was submitted to Secretary of State Sam Reed on January 9, 2007. On January 22, the final draft was accepted and assigned the serial number 957. To make the November ballot, we need to collect 224,880 valid signatures. To cover the likelihood that not all of the signatures will be valid, we have set a goal of 280,000.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[goofyjumper 0]

Quote

>have a kid w/in 3 years or the marriage is annulled?

Yep. If the state says it wishes to restrict marriage to those who can raise kids, then not raising kids would surely be grounds for denying marriage rights.

" . . . but wait . . . we just wanted to go after the gays . . ."

Since when is marriage only defined by being able to raise children? (i am not asking you billvon) just making a general statement to the people who actually thought of this stupid law.

-----------------
I love and Miss you so much Honey!
Orfun #3 ~ Darla

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

The sad thing is that people who don't pay attention to the details of these proposed laws will just see the basics of it and vote it in.

Quote

Since when is marriage only defined by being able to raise children? (i am not asking you billvon) just making a general statement to the people who actually thought of this stupid law.

Irony.

[Taikoen 0]

Quote

Quote

That IS absurd... have a kid w/in 3 years or the marriage is annulled?

That's the point.

You'd have to get the official state definition of procreate. Depending on your source it could mean to produce an offspring or perform the act which could produce a child. I won't comment either way on what they're trying to stop, but the state is basically trying to get across Boy Part + Girl Part. What if they push proof to be blood tests to prove that the couple on the marriage license are genetically proven to be the parents?

They definitely have to work on the wording or male-female couples who aren't physically capable are going to be impacted just as much.

[kelpdiver 2]

the language has more loopholes than that.

Lesbians are capable of trying to have a child with each other...just add a vial of sperm to the mix.

But the fools went too far with the forced breeding. Dead on arrival. They would have had a shot with just sticking to the gay bashing.

[billvon 3,120]

>Since when is marriage only defined by being able to raise children?

Since the WA court made this ruling. It's pretty clear that what they really wanted to say was "gays can't get married" but that would be a pretty clear demonstration of their prejudices. So they tried to get the same effect by claiming that the state had a legitimate interest in supporting only procreative couples, which would have the "side effect" of banning gay marriage. As is usually the case with such silly subterfuge, they didn't think their decision through - and now others are proposing legislation to show the stupidity of the decision.

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

and now others are proposing legislation to show the stupidity of the decision.

Yes, but the fact that it seems to me that some of the posters here have already missed the point makes me worry that (should this get on the ballot) Washington voters may be equally clueless...

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[billvon 3,120]

>Washington voters may be equally clueless...

Well, if it does pass, they will surely end up with the government they deserve.

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

>Washington voters may be equally clueless...

Well, if it does pass, they will surely end up with the government they deserve.

Sadly, yes, although I think part of the goal is to get it passed, then force the Supreme Court to rule it unconstitutional.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[PhreeZone 20]

This has me laughing today. Ohio had the idea to ban smoking in public areas. Last fall two measures were on the ballot "Smoke Free Ohio" and "Smoke-less Ohio". Smoke less was actaully a measure to allow you to smoke in more places then allowed prior to the election and smoke free was to eliminate smoking They basically canceled each other out but yet almost a full 1/8 of the population voted yes on both of them.

Turns out that there are were no fines or anything linked to the passage of the bill so for now they can just tell you to quit smoking in public and thats it.

The ability of the common voter to vote yes just since something is on the ballot amazes me. If I was in WA I'd sign it just to see the courts fight over their rulings for the next 3 years.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Quote

* require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as “unrecognized;”

What does THAT mean??

VIDEO!!!!

We are all engines of karma

[NWFlyer 2]

My friend had a great rant following November's election about the folly of initiatives and referenda sometimes ...

Quote

In these post-election days, everyone is going to blog about how the elections turned out and whether it's a good outcome. Despite the title of this entry, I'm going to take a second to talk about the part of the election that no one else wants to talk about: the lame-o voters.

Yes, that's right. There are people out there who apparently don't know what they're voting for. The City of Seattle put 11 changes to their charter on the ballot. The changes are relatively minor, and generally have no opposition and no consequences. For instance, Charter Amendment #6 basically says that if City Hall is inaccessible (or destroyed) due to some emergency (natural or caused by man), they can meet somewhere other than City Hall. Seems like a good idea. Afterall, if City Hall is destroyed, we might want our leaders to be able to make some decisions, right? Well, 6.5% of the voters thought that was a bad idea. That's right... 5,996 people in the city of Seattle thought that was a bad idea.

Charter amendment #7 basically says that a quorum is the majority of council members in office at the time. Previously, if half of the coucil were incapacitated, there would be no way for the council to actually vote on anything. Now, this one might be slightly more controversial, because someone could start to question the definition of incapacitated. Even so, no one officially opposed this. Still, 13.56% of the voters think this is a bad idea.

Charter amendment #9 actually had opposition! This change requires that the auditor be appointed by the majority of the city council, rather than the chair of the finance committee, and the auditor would serve 4 years instead of six. With the added opposition from some random person, 24.96% of the voters decided this was a bad idea. Apparently when someone writes an opposing statement, it garners another 10% of the voters into the opposition.

The list goes on, but we must stop again at amendment #15. This charter amedment removes references to to the office of the city comptroller. Why are they removing the references? Because we don't have a comptroller. How did the lovely city of Seattle do this time? 10.02% of voters (8,115 people) decided this was a bad idea. Eight thousand one hundred and fifteen people thought it was better to give a non-existent position some responsibilities rather than assign them to a real official. I want to meet those 8,115 people. Yes, all of them. No, I'm not going to do anything bad to them. I just want to know what they were thinking. Why would you vote against that? Is it because you just want to be different? Does that mean that 10% of our voters are voting for a candidate or an initiative "just to be different"?

I have a suggesion. From this point forward, we should put measures on the ballot to eliminate some voters. If you answer these questions incorrectly, ALL of your votes are discounted. Here's my initial list of suggestions for those measures:
1. If enacted, this law would require all textbooks to be modified to reflect the true state of the Earth. The Earth is flat, not sphere as some blasphemous people claim.
2. If enacted, this law would require all residents to stop breathing from 1:00PM (PST) to 2:00PM (PST) every other Monday. The world is running out of oxygen, and this will conserve our precious resources.

Any others? Submit your ideas now for the next election :-)

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[billvon 3,120]

>That's right... 5,996 people in the city of Seattle thought that was a bad idea.

If there was currently nothing in the city bylaws about this (i.e. nothing said they could _or_ couldn't meet somewhere else in an emergency) I'd vote against it too. I generally favor fewer laws, not more. I don't think that makes people who agree with that stupid, just differing in their opinion.

While I have no doubt there are a lot of stupid voters, disagreeing with the majority does not an idiot make.

[kelpdiver 2]

I don't fault people for defaulting to a no vote, and I can think of many valid reasons to vote against charter amendments, esp #9.

In Oakland this process was used to greatly increase the power of the mayor.

[NWFlyer 2]

Yeah, I can see #9 being one where a thoughtful voter would say "no." But the others... I think my friend has a point.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[kelpdiver 2]

And what about #7. It's incomplete, but if half the council is temporarily gone, they probably shouldn't be making decisions, they should be getting a full membership back.

[NWFlyer 2]

Okay, I'm now regretting posting that rant! I didn't mean to discuss the minutae of Seattle City Council referenda (all of which passed and are now on the books), but to point out what I consider to be flaws with the referenda/initiative process.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke