Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Announcing: Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance (WA-DOMA)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-07-06 07:09 AM
Original message
Announcing: Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance (WA-DOMA)
Note to mods: I am the copyright holder of record for this material.

From our website:
The threat to marriage
On July 26, 2006, the Washington Supreme Court declared that the state's Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional. In upholding DOMA, the Court stated that marriage exists for the purpose of procreation and that the state has a legitimate interest in limiting marriage only those couples capable of procreating without third party assistance.

Because of that ruling, precedent now exists where the validity of any marriage can be decided solely on whether or not the husband and wife have had children together. The right to inherit or claim common ownership based on marriage may now be challenged if the married couple does not have offspring. It may now be possible for employers or insurance providers to deny coverage of a spouse until the couple has procreated. And the door is now open for the Legislature to require that two people have children together before they may become married.

What we can do
The people cannot overrule the Supreme Court, but we can place boundaries on how and when the precedent of Andersen v. King County will be applied. For that purpose, the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance was created on July 27, 2006. This January, WA-DOMA will propose an initiative to the people that will give Andersen the force of law while defending marriage from the worst consequences of that ruling. Under the initiative:

  • Marriage will be restricted only to those couples able to have children together.


  • Couples married in Washington will have three years from the date of their marriage or 18 months from the date the initiative becomes law, whichever is later, to either have children together or provide documentation that they have fulfilled the primary purpose of marriage. Failure to comply would result in the marriage being annulled.


  • Couples married outside of Washington who live in this state will have three years from the date of their marriage or 18 months from the date the initiative becomes law or 30 days from the date they move into this state, whichever is later, to either have children or provide documentation that they have fulfilled the primary purpose of marriage. Failure to comply would result in the marriage being unrecognized as a valid marriage until proper documentation is filed.



The website for the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance is http://www.wa-doma.org . A copy of our proposed initiative can be found on the site, or downloaded as a PDF document.

And lest anyone think this is a joke: In order to set up our site without committing a felony under state law, we've had to file with the US Internal Revenue Service and the state Public Disclosure Commission as a political committee. I assure you, this is no joke. We will be filing this initiative at the earliest opportunity in the first week of January.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meegbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-07-06 07:12 AM
Response to Original message
1. This is awesome!
What was that about slippery slopes with gay marriage?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-07-06 07:13 AM
Response to Original message
2. Well, it looks like I'm single in Washington.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oversea Visitor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-07-06 07:21 AM
Response to Original message
3. If you do not behave like rabbits and breed
You cannot marry :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-07-06 07:38 AM
Response to Original message
4. This is how the Republicans wanted it, apparently
since I heard them go on and on about how homosexual marriage is wrong because it doesn't allow procreation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-07-06 08:03 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. That was originally going to be our take
When we found out that our bluff to propose such an initiative had been called, we were going to propose it in the spirit of, "Conservatives have been demanding it; the courts say they can have it; by God, we're going to give it to them."

As it turns out, the threat mentioned on our website is very real. We've spoken to several legal experts who represent a variety of different views on equal marriage, and all are nervous over how the Court based their decision. The precedent where a marriage can be described as valid solely on there being issue has been established, and there will be many years of very nasty litigation before things are cleared up. In an ironic twist of fate, this "Defense of Marriage Initiative" -- chosen back in 2004, along with our name -- may actually serve to defend marriage by putting limits on how that precedent may be applied.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-07-06 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. scary how that happens
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-07-06 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
7. Bump n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karlrschneider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-07-06 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
8. Fantastic. A bit of "careful what you wish for" back at the bigots.
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy Vixen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-07-06 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
9. Beautiful
We'll be married 13 years in September and have never exercised our option to "procreate", nor will we be doing so. Our marriage license was issued in King County. We were married in Kirkland, WA.

I can't WAIT to see the legal pretzel the state of Washington will twist themselves into over this one.

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-07-06 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. The sad thing, this initiative tries to untwist the pretzel
If you look at the actual ruling (available here) you will see that it was the state Supreme Court who baked the knotted breadstick. As it stands now, your marriage can be legally called in to question because you have not fulfilled the principle purpose of marriage.

What was conceived of as a piece of satirical "street theater by initiative" several years ago has now become a necessary defense of marriage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy Vixen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-07-06 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Are you all taking test cases?
>you have not fulfilled the principle purpose of marriage<

I don't know if DH will think this is the greatest idea ever, but if they're taking test cases, maybe we should volunteer. We had no intention of having children. Ever. We told the minister who married us that we didn't want anything in the ceremony re: "If your marriage is blessed with children," bla bla bla.

Seriously.

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-07-06 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. None of us are lawyers or legal experts
Which, odd as it may sound, makes us ideally suited to write laws in Washington and present them as an initiative :rofl:

Seriously, I don't think there isn't much you can do, short of directly suing the state of Washington over real harm suffered as a result of that ruling. "Real harm" would be something like an employer or insurance company who refuses to provide marital benefits to your spouse because you two aren't in a real marriage as defined by the Washington State Supreme Court, or a judge ruling that you have no right as next-of-kin because your marriage is invalid, etc. You would probably be better off asking a sympathetic lawyer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rustydog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-07-06 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
12. The Supreme court of WA left it up to the legislature...
They actually said the state can define marriage...Which means the legislature can REDEFINE the definition to include gays and lesbians.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-07-06 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. But until the Legislature acts...
Their precedent of "marriage exists for the purpose of procreation" stands as common law under the United States system of jurisprudence.

The chance that the Legislature will legalize equal marriage is next to non existant; the chance that an initiative would legalize equal marriage is even smaller. In the absense of any other options, the Defense of Marriage Initiative which seeks to limit how that precedent can be applied.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duncan Grant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-08-06 12:31 AM
Response to Original message
15. This is a strategy that I can appreciate.
We must use every available resource to secure our civil equality. How many signatures do you need in order to get this initiative on the ballot?

Great work, TB_S - thanks for taking a leadership role on this issue. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-08-06 06:59 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. About 225,000 valid signatures
So in reality, about 280,000 to make sure that we have enough valid signatures after all the invalid ones have been disqualified :cry:

That's why we are hoping to collect $300,000: it will be very difficult to make the ballot without *spit* paid signature gatherers. And the fundies won't go on record supporting or opposing this measure until it actually makes the ballot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Mar 25th 2017, 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC