It would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else their marriage would be annulled.
I doubt it would get enough signatures to make the ballot, but it's sure succeeding in starting a lot of conversations.
Let us add to that conversation a link between "sexual politics" and "environmental politics."
Population, procreation; it doesn't make sense to persecute alternative lifestyles, such as gay lifestyles, while the world's getting too crowded and the north pole is melting. Look at all the traffic.
So, let the conversation roll and let's start talking sexual politics linked to environmental politics.
I doubt that Initiative 957 is a serious initiative. It is basically a conversation starter. Filed in response to a recent Washington State Supreme Court ruling against gay marriage.
Court ruling called Andersen V. King County.
This decision, 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.
This initiative to also bar "child free" heterosexual couples from marriage may not go real far, toward the ballot, but it's going a long ways in editorial pages, blogs and radio talk shows. Now that the conversation is starting, it is time to link this discussion to environmental issues. How much procreation do we want to promote in this world, or do we want to embrace some alternatives?
People seem real excited about signing I-957. Maybe it will go a long ways toward the ballot.
If it were to become law, the court would likely strike it down thus undermining the court's logic about banning gay marriage related to said "state interest" in procreation. I read that is one of the goals of the organizers for 957.
Post a Comment