A group of (pro-)gay-marriage activists are pushing a ballot measure in Washington that would only grant marriage licenses to hetero couples who say they are willing to have children. And if those married couples fail to pop a few out by the time three years have passed, the state would automatically dissolve their marriage.
Gregory Gadow, of the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, said the group hopes to make a point by parodying a state Supreme Court ruling last year that denied gays the right to marry because, among other reasons, such unions don't further the purpose of procreation.
The group even has a sweet anti-gay name! This is a great rhetorical argument against the point of view that the primary purpose of marriage is to create children, therefore gay couples shouldn't be granted the right. From the group's website:
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.
Most gay-rights supporters in the state say they're unlikely to support the parody measure, saying "I don't think anybody in the gay community wants to take someone else's rights away." They may be taking it a little seriously, but who can blame them? While I, as someone strongly pro-gay-rights, understand it's a PR move to expose the lunacy of the anti-gay crowd, it also lends credence to the classic hetero-marriage-only argument that granting gay people the right somehow "reduces" the rights of straight people. (Hence all the conservative talk of "protecting marriage.") The antis don't really have a sense of humor, and I can see them trotting this out as proof that gay men and lesbians really do want to take away YOUR rights as a good, upstanding, heterosexual Christian citizen.
But the gay-marriage group shouldn't despair. If they're lacking signatures on this initiative, they can always hit up conservative Catholics. The ballot measure seems perfectly aligned with church doctrine.
(Thanks for the link, Darin!)
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Procreation or divorce: Your choice..
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/4737
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
As a heterosexual strongly in favor of gay rights, I can laugh with the activists on this one.
I am still confused how America, in the 21st century, is still caught up in the debate on equal rights.
Haven't we learned from history yet?
I seem to recall that some governments have conditioned marriage on the ability to procreate... Nazi Germany comes to mind.
As a gay rights supporter, I am totally down for this. I am sick an tired of yall heteros marrying for NO goddamn reason! Now have some babies or shut up!
I think it's great! We should also institute mandatory divorce the moment a woman hits menopause... or we could just allow gay marriage. Yeah, that would work.
As a woman who doesn't want kids this law would prevent me from marrying anyone period, but I still would support it full heartedly:) I think it's wonderful that they're at least trying to call these people on their hypocritical shit.
I knew it was bad news when that Pixies spin-off band decided to call themselves The Breeders back in the day.
Ultra, same here (at least w/r/t/ bio kids). I wonder what happens if the het couple wants to adopt? Or what if they're already shown to be infertile? Seems to me these unions shouldn't be allowed, since that makes them the functional equivalent of a gay couple.
The more I think about it, the more I seriously consider -- assuming I ever meet anyone I'd actually want to spend my life with -- doing the church wedding, because I would like a church wedding for religious/cultural/personal reasons, but not getting legally married as a protest against inequality toward gay couples. I love to think that there are lots of straight gay-marriage supporters who would do this.
I think I read somewhere that Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt are not getting married for the same reason- she doesn't wanna get married til everyone who wants to can.
I think the group makes a great point- but taking this article in context with the article about illegal immigrants being deported for being pregnant makes me feel that it's not so farfetched that the government would like to make it law! (Hey if you're married and white or at least 'old stock' American, pop out some damned kids already! or else! "they're" gaining on us.... )
The Law Fairy: If it's church of Satan, and I get to walk in from the bright sunlight carrying a black umbrella, count me in.
kpsisu,
Yes, Brad Pitt did say that in an interview that they weren't going to get married until "everyone" could (everyone including polygamists) but I think, while that's admirable, no one in government really gives a shit either way. It's not a valid protest and even my gay friends were like, "who cares?"
At least this way they're calling attention to the unfairness of the marriage amendments.
Law Fairy,
If they want to adopt they can get married, even if they abuse their kids in the name of Christ it's better than letting the kids be around gay people.
There should have been a question mark after "polygamists". Sorry.
Seeking a Viagra prescription should put the couple on Red Alert.
If the fella can't keep it up, then procreation is alot less likely.
I LOVE this. I think it's genius. It deconstructs the whole idea of marriage -- the exclusivity of which, once you start to unravel it, is really really hard to defend.
as a hetero, married woman who doesn't want kids, I think we need to start this up in other states, too!