WA DOMA
2007-02-05 23:52:48.559656+00 by
Dan Lyke
5 comments
Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance:
... 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.
The way we are challenging Andersen is unusual: using the initiative, we are working to put the Court’s ruling into law. We will do this through three initiatives. The first would make procreation a requirement for legal marriage. The second would prohibit divorce or legal separation when there are children. The third would make the act of having a child together the legal equivalent of a marriage ceremony.
[ related topics:
Religion Sexual Culture Sociology Law Marriage
]
comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):
#Comment Re: made: 2007-02-06 01:32:01.085633+00 by:
ebradway
The first would make procreation a requirement for legal marriage
Sounds like a problem for science to solve...
The second would prohibit divorce or legal separation when there are children.
The third would make the act of having a child together the legal equivalent of a marriage ceremony.
So by combining 2 & 3, what happens when the spouse gets pregnant through adultery? Does it automatically anull the first marriage? What about sperm donors?
Don't these people think through these things?
#Comment Re: made: 2007-02-06 01:44:34.616024+00 by:
Mars Saxman
Don't these people think through these things?
That's the point. It would appear that people do not, in fact, think through the implications of their
argument that gay people shouldn't be able to marry because they can't procreate, so this initiative takes
them a few steps down the road.
#Comment Re: made: 2007-02-06 02:08:46.318026+00 by:
Dan Lyke
And, to answer Eric's question: The people who made the flawed decision are judges. Judges are lawyers. Any lawyer who maintains the ability to think critically isn't going to be successful in that field, the law is about persuasion and sales, not about logic and reason.
#Comment Re: made: 2007-02-06 10:57:23.696609+00 by:
topspin
[edit history]
I'm not an attorney, of course, but the reasoning of the Washington decision is pretty straightforward to me.
The SCOTUS and most other courts don't extend "suspect class" status to sexual orientation. Given that, the court not under any obligation to second guess what the legislature decides on the issue.
Further, marriage simply fails in being beneficial to society.
The "stable families raise better kids" argument fails miserably in the midst of our society's divorce rates. Divorce rates and cohabitation rates tell us folks have little "traditional" respect left for the contract as a harbinger of a longterm commitment.
The REAL question is why should society continue the farce marriage is by extending it to same sex folks? A better, more logical strategy would be cease governmental sanctioning, recording, and extending benefits to those who are married..... PERIOD.
#Comment Re: made: 2007-02-10 03:51:41.791951+00 by:
Larry Burton
I agree with Topspin. Marriage is a religious institution and shouldn't be sanctioned by government.