HeiBlog

I’ve railed here before about same-sex marriage which is a reoccurring issue back in Massachusetts were I used to live. Currently, opponents to same-sex marriage are trying to amend the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Many other states (sorry they had the best map) have already done this and an amendment to the federal constitution has been propose by President Bush.

My opinion on the subject is simple, people should not be discriminated against because of their sexuality (I realize there are tons of holes in that statement). I really don’t care if two gay guys or two lesbians want to get hitch and more than a man and a woman. Either way it doesn’t affect me at all. It’s their life and their choices, not mine. What I do mind is people using the government to force their morals on the people. It is the government’s role to maintain the public welfare and good. If my actions don’t infringe on another’s rights I don’t think the state should have any say over what I do. We need government and we need laws, but there is also a time where you can go too far.

That’s the point that they Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance (WDOM) is trying to make with their filing of Initiative 957 (via Metafiter, linked to this blog), proposing to:

• 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 Secretary of State accepted the initiative finding that is was in line with a previous ruling of the state Supreme Court that upheld the Washington State Defense of Marriage Act, stating in the ruling that “Limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents.”.

The initiators clearly state in their press release that “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.” Saying further that “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.”

WDOM is putting up a proposal that is so ridiculous that will never pass but will be a strong example and will spark discussion. If it does pass it is ready-made fodder to be stuck down and set president. This is an obvious parody, still some media outlets don’t get joke.

Washington is a split state with the coastal area being much more liberal than the eastern section s of the state. For those in the state that don’t get the joke I hope they ask themselves some questions (this if of course assuming that it even makes it on the ballot). What about the heterosexual couples that can’t have or don’t want to have children? Even without children aren’t they still holding up the idea of marriage? Should a barren women be denied proper heath care? She couldn’t be covered on her husband’s plan under this action. What about if the husband just has low sperm count?

While I can appreciate the purpose of this action I still see a sad state of affairs in the country. The problems that it addresses are questions that should not really be addressed in the public eye. Perhaps I have different views on which of a society’s morals should be regulated by the State. You could draw up all sorts of arguments on any issue. It’s illegal in most parts of the US to be naked in public areas, but there are many who would consider this to be inoffensive and even an infringement on their expression.

As long as there are those who seek to impress their moral structure on the rest of society actions like Initiative 95 will be necessary. The only comfort that I get from this and much of the proceedings in Massachusetts on the issue of same-sex marriage is that all initiatives have been passed while honoring the Rule of Law. Both sides have made use of the tools available to them with in the context of the American Social Contract. I can take some comfort in the fact that as country we still agree on the fundamentals (founding principles if you will) that are the United States of America even if we can’t fully agree on what it represents.