Trying another tactic to support equal marriage rights

[featherynscale]

EDIT: I love you all. PLEASE READ THE LAST PARAGRAPH BEFORE YOU COMMENT. Thanks!

Washington group to equal marriage opponents: "Oh, you'd like to be absurd? Let's be absurd!".

The short form is this: Up for consideration in the state of Washington, a bill that would include the concept of procreation in the state's definition of marriage, requiring couples to sign a statement that they know of no reason why they should not be able to have a child together, and requiring marriages to be dissolved within three years if the couple fails to produce a child. Later, the group will introduce other bills linking marriage only to reproduction and establishing it as being for no other purpose.

Their intent is to challenge a ruling in which the courts intimated that the state had a legitimate interest in legislating against same-sex couples marrying because marriage is inherently about procreation. They hope that the death of their bills will chip away at the ruling, and eventually remove this roadblock to same-sex marriage in Washington.

Comments

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

That is the downside, that there might be enough people who really do think that marriage should only be about squeezin' 'em out as often as possible, and that they'd support it for what it appears to be about rather than what it is actually about. If it stands, it reduces the number of folks who can have marriage rights instead of the other way around.

But you know, I'm not picky. Getting to a point where you can marry anybody you want (with consent, kids), is my first choice, of course. But, if we can't do that, I'm willing to go with getting rid of the whole concept of marriage (or at least [and more likely] a retreat by the government from the concept of marriage, leaving it in the hands of the churches, with no civil benefits attached).

Hey! The Reds are right! I really do want to destroy marriage! :-P