There seems to be a fair amount of confusion and misunderstanding about WA's Initiative-957, The Defense of Marriage Initiative. Some of this I have accidentally fed by being unclear, so hope to clear up a few things here. Thank you DU ers for listening, for thinking, for helping me refine this so I can be ready to talk with J.Q.Public. I am writing here, speaking here, for myself, NOT as one of the people doing this initiative, just as a person with a lot of interest in it.
From the was-doma website:
http://www.wa-doma.org/news/S20070125.aspx
On July 26, 2006, the Washington Supreme Court issued their ruling on Andersen v. King County, decided jointly with Castle v. Washington. These cases sought to overturn Washington's Defense of Marriage Act, which bans same-sex couples from the hundreds of rights, protections and privileges which state law provides through marriage. In their ruling, the Supreme Court claimed a "legitimate state interest" in defining marriage exclusively for the purpose of procreation and child-rearing. The justices then used this interest to declare that same-sex couples are properly barred from marriage because they are incapable of procreating.
In response, a group of concerned citizens formed the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance this past August. Our agenda is to shine a very bright light on the injustice and prejudice that underlie the Andersen decision by giving that decision the full force of law. Over the next few years, we will propose three initiatives to the people, each focusing on a different aspect of Andersen. The first initiative will make procreation a requirement for legal marriage. The second would prohibit divorce or separation when a married couple has children together. The third would make having a child together the equivalent of marriage.
Each of the initiatives we get passed will, no doubt, be struck down as unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court. Good; that is our ultimate goal. Each ruling against these initiatives will also be a ruling against the basis for keeping the state's Defense of Marriage Act. Eventually, Andersen will fall apart under the weight of judicial opinion, and equal marriage – the marriage which we seek to defend – shall become a reality in this state.
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.
For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation. The Washington Supreme Court echoed that claim in their lead ruling on Andersen v. King County. The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine. If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who can not or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage. And this is what the Defense of Marriage Initiative will do.
If you want to see equal marriage become a reality in Washington State, I urge you to support I-957. If we work together, we can do it.
If we let the Supreme Court ruling stand, precedent has been set as "defining marriage exclusively for the purpose of procreation and child-rearing." By NOT acting, we are saying that the ruling is correct and we agree with it. I do not have the money, the backing, the time, the expertise to fight this on another case before the WA Supreme Court. I do support the people initiating this initiative as it has the people speaking for themselves.
When an initiative to the people passes at the ballot box, it goes into law effective the midnight starting the next January 1. In effect, those who sign the initiative petitions are acting as the Legislature and the vote is equivalent to the Governor either signing or vetoing the measure.
If we can get I-957 on to the ballot, we will win. What the initiative is asking for IS outrageous. If it gets voted out with a large loss (what I think most likely), this will tell the WA Supreme Court that the state's citizens disagree with their ruling and set the precedent that The People have spoken. If it passes, the state Supreme Court would have to strike it down as unconstitutional, and thereby over rule their previous ruling.
Either way, we win.
I will be checking in periodically to respond to replies and questions. If I have been unclear, my apologies. Thank you.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
