(no subject)
Feb. 6th, 2007 08:56 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
badstarSecond...I'm reasonably sure I have my HTML fixed.
Third...no, I don't but I give up. Every time I try to fix somehting, something else winds up all messed up. (That's what I getfor playing around in rich text instead of using HTML I guess.)
http://www.komotv.com/news/5566451.html
Is anyone able to get the full text of this article? Only the top graphics on the page will load for me, I think because of the pop-up blocker here in the office.
I see this much of it in an RSS feed:
I-957 WOULD REQUIRE MARRIED COUPLES TO HAVE KIDS
Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced an initiative that would put a whole new twist on traditional unions between men and women: It would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriages annulled.
Initiative 957 was filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, which was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage. In that 5-4 ruling, the court found that state lawmakers were justified in passing the 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which restricts marriage to unions between a man and woman.
Under I-957, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriages would be subject to annulment.
All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized" and people in them would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.
Here's the text of the initiative: http://www.wa-doma.org/Initiative.aspx
Text added to existing laws are marked like this.
New laws are introduced with NEW SECTION.
AN ACT Relating to marriage; amending RCW 26.04.010, 26.04.020, 26.04.210, 43.70.150, and 70.58.005; adding new sections to chapter 26.04 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 26.09 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 70.58 RCW; and creating a new section.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. On July 26, 2006, the Washington supreme court cited the "legitimate state interests" of procreation and child-rearing as a basis for preserving the defense of marriage act. The People of Washington find it desirable to place part of this ruling into statutory form and make procreation a requirement for valid marriage in this state.
Sec. 2 RCW 26.04.010 and 1998 c 1 s 3 are each amended to read as follows:
(1) Marriage is a civil contract between a male and a female who have each attained the age of eighteen years, who are capable of having children with one another, and who are otherwise capable.
(2) Every marriage entered into in which either the husband or the wife has not attained the age of seventeen years is void except where this section has been waived by a superior court judge of the county in which one of the parties resides on a showing of necessity.
Sec. 3. RCW 26.04.020 and 1998 c 1 s 4 are each amended to read as follows:
(1) Marriages in the following cases are prohibited:
- (a) When either party thereto has a wife or husband living at the time of such marriage;
- (b) When the husband and wife are nearer of kin to each other than second cousins, whether of the whole or half blood computing by the rules of the civil law; or
- (c) When the parties are persons other than a male and a female;
- (d) When the parties are unable to have children together for any reason; or
- (e) When the parties were previously married in this state but had their marriage annulled because of failure to have filed a certificate of marital procreation as required by section 5 of this act.
(2) It is unlawful for any man to marry his father's sister, mother's sister, daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's daughter or sister's daughter; it is unlawful for any woman to marry her father's brother, mother's brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son or sister's son.
(3) A marriage between two persons that is recognized as valid in another jurisdiction is valid in this state only if the marriage is not prohibited or made unlawful under subsection (1)(a), (1)(c), or (2) of this section an unrecognized marriage as defined by section 7 of this act.
Sec. 4. RCW 26.04.210 and 2003 c 53 s 166 are each amended to read as follows:
(1) The county auditor, before a marriage license is issued, upon the payment of a license fee as fixed in RCW 36.18.010 shall require each applicant therefor to make and file in the auditor's office upon blanks to be provided by the county for that purpose, an affidavit showing that if an applicant is afflicted with any contagious sexually transmitted disease, the condition is known to both applicants, that the applicants know of no reason why they would be unable to have children together, and that the applicants are the age of eighteen years or over. If the consent in writing is obtained of the father, mother, or legal guardian of the person for whom the license is required, the license may be granted in cases where the female has attained the age of seventeen years or the male has attained the age of seventeen years. Such affidavit may be subscribed and sworn to before any person authorized to administer oaths.
(2) Anyone knowingly swearing falsely to any of the statements contained in the affidavits mentioned in this section is guilty of perjury under chapter 9A.72 RCW.
(3) The affidavit form shall be designed to require a statement that no contagious sexually transmitted disease is present or that the condition is known to both applicants, without requiring the applicants to state whether or not either or both of them are afflicted by such disease.
(4) Any person knowingly violating this section is guilty of a class C felony and shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in a state correctional facility for a period of not more than three years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. A new section is added to chapter 26.04 RCW to read as follows:
(1) All couples married in this state shall have three years from the date of solemnization of the marriage, or eighteen months from the effective date of this act, whichever is later, to have filed with the state registrar of vital statistics or designated deputy registrar at least one certificate of marital procreation as described in section 11 of this act.
(2) Failure to comply with subsection (1) of this section shall result in the marriage being unrecognized as described in section 7 of this act, effective as of the midnight ending the time period described in subsection (1) of this section.
(3) A marriage that has become unrecognized pursuant to subsection (2) of this section shall remain unrecognized until the couple has complied with the requirements of subsection (1) of this section, or until the marriage is annulled in accordance with section 8 of this act, or until the marriage is dissolved for any other reason.
(4) The couple shall be subject to the penalties of section 7 (2) through (4) of this act for any marital benefits received during the time their marriage was unrecognized.
(5) Within fourteen days after the date described in subsection (1) of this section, the state registrar of vital statistics shall verify that at least one certificate of marital procreation has been filed for the married couple. In the absence of any such certificate, the registrar shall proceed in accordance with section 8 of this act.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. A new section is added to chapter 26.04 RCW to read as follows:
(1) All couples married outside of this state shall have three years from the date of solemnization of the marriage, or eighteen months from the effective date of this act, or thirty days from the date of taking up residence within this state, whichever is later, to have filed with the state registrar of vital statistics or designated deputy registrar at least one certificate of marital procreation as described in section 11 of this act.
(2) Failure to comply with subsection (1) of this section shall result in the marriage being unrecognized as described in section 7 of this act, effective as of the midnight ending the time period described in subsection (1) of this section.
(3) A marriage that has become unrecognized pursuant to subsection (2) of this section shall remain unrecognized until the couple has complied with the requirements of subsection (1) of this section, or until the marriage is dissolved.
(4) The couple shall be subject to the penalties of section 7 (2) through (4) of this act for any marital benefits received during the time their marriage was unrecognized.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 7. A new section is added to chapter 26.04 RCW to read as follows:
(1) No state, county or local government, governmental agency, or other public agent shall provide marriage benefits to any individual in an unrecognized marriage. Any person who receives benefits in violation of this subsection shall be liable for repayment of those benefits or their monetary value.
(2) No employer, insurance provider, or other private agent shall be required to provide marriage benefits to any individual in an unrecognized marriage. Any person who receives benefits in violation of this subsection shall be liable for repayment of those benefits or their monetary value upon the request of the providing agent.
(3) It shall be a gross misdemeanor when:
- (a) An individual with knowledge that his marriage is unrecognized applies for marital benefits;
- (b) An individual with knowledge that his marriage is unrecognized allows another to apply for marital benefits on his behalf; and
- (c) An individual applies for marital benefits on behalf of someone else, knowing that this person's marriage is unrecognized.
(4) "Unrecognized marriage" means a marriage recognized as valid in another jurisdiction but which is prohibited or made unlawful under RCW 26.04.020(1)(a), (c), (d), (e), or (2), section 5 of this act, or section 6 of this act.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 8. A new section is added to chapter 26.09 RCW to read as follows:
(1) When the state registrar of vital statistics determines that a marriage solemnized in this state has failed to produce offspring as described in section 5 of this act, he or she shall file a petition in the superior court of the county wherein the marriage license was filed requesting that the marriage be annulled on the grounds of failure to fulfill the purpose of marriage. This petition shall include the names and last known address of the husband and wife, the date of their marriage, the date of the deadline described in section 5(1) of this act, and a statement declaring that no certificates of marital procreation have been filed as required by law.
(2) The court shall have thirty days to make a good faith effort to contact the couple and allow them to contest the annulment of their marriage. If the couple can have filed with the state registrar a certificate of marital procreation as described in section 11 of this act showing the birth of a child before the deadline described in section 5(1) of this act, the petition for annulment shall be dismissed. If a certificate is not filed within the time allowed, the annulment shall be decreed.
Sec. 9. RCW 43.70.150 and 1989 1st ex.s. c 9 s 254 are each amended to read as follows:
The secretary of health shall have charge of the state system of registration of births, marital procreation, deaths, fetal deaths, marriages, and decrees of divorce, annulment and separate maintenance, and shall prepare the necessary rules, forms, and blanks for obtaining records, and insure the faithful registration thereof.
Sec. 10. RCW 70.58.005 and 2005 c 365 s 151 are each amended to read as follows:
The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise.
- (1) "Business days" means Monday through Friday except official state holidays.
- (2) "Department" means the department of health.
- (3) "Embalmer" means a person licensed as required in chapter 18.39 RCW and defined in RCW 18.39.010.
- (4) "Funeral director" means a person licensed as required in chapter 18.39 RCW and defined in RCW 18.39.010.
- (5) "Vital records" means records of birth, marital procreation, death, fetal death, marriage, dissolution, annulment, and legal separation, as maintained under the supervision of the state registrar of vital statistics.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 11. A new section is added to chapter 70.58 RCW to read as follows:
(1) When a birth certificate is filed pursuant to RCW 70.58.080 which names a mother and father who are married to one another, the registrar shall prepare a certificate of marital procreation. This certificate shall include the names of the mother and father, the date of their marriage, whether their marriage was filed in this state and if so, the county in which the marriage was solemnized, and the date of the child's birth. This certificate shall be forwarded to the state office of vital statistics with the birth certificate pursuant to RCW 70.58.030.
(2) When a certificate of marital procreation is required for births that have occurred outside of this state, the couple shall provide to the state registrar of vital statistics or designated deputy registrar a certified copy of a birth certificate showing the married couple to be the biological parents of a child born after the date of the marriage, along with either proof of the date of their marriage or the sworn affidavit of both husband and wife giving the date of their marriage.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-02-06 02:17 pm (UTC)but it's not surprising the scary, ridiculous lengths some folks will go to in order to preserve the hegemony of heterosexual-only marriage.
if the only compelling reason for heterosexual-only marriage is the procreation of children, they're going to take that and run.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-06 02:22 pm (UTC)If course it won't pass. It'll get a lot of (straight) people pissed off at the idea that they must have kids to be married (and in fact, within 3 years of marriage), and fail horribly.
This will (I think the proposers believe) give them cause to go before the courts and say "The last judge said procreation was essential to marriage, and therefor gays can't get married. We tested that idea; the voters rejected it soundly. Now why can't we get married?".
Whether it gets to the ballot or not, it's certainly drawing attention to the issue that marriage isn't prohibited to straight couples because of procreative issues.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-06 02:29 pm (UTC)The point isn't to pass the law. The point is to get opponents of same-sex marriage to admit that the idea of "same-sex marriage should be prohibited because they can't have kids" is ludicrous.
This is an example of taking your opponent's argument past its logical conclusion in order to show them that it was never logical to begin with.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-06 02:40 pm (UTC)The article is very interesting, and the I-957 is a GOOD thing.
"Gadow said that if the group's initiatives were passed, the Supreme Court would be forced to strike them down as unconstitutional, which he believes would weaken the original ruling upholding the Defense of Marriage Act."
They just took the original ruling and followed it several (absurd) steps further to try to prove their point, and to get people talking about the issue again. If I lived in Washington, I'd sign their petition to put it on the ballot gladly!
no subject
Date: 2007-02-06 02:48 pm (UTC)idiotapologist who suggests that homosexuals and their lobbyists don't have an anti-heterosexual agenda- regardless of what the actual motive behind I-957 is. =\no subject
Date: 2007-02-06 02:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-06 02:58 pm (UTC)Yes, it makes much more sense now.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-06 02:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-06 02:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-06 03:02 pm (UTC)who are capable of having children with one another
because, of course, this would leave out anyone who is heterosexual perhaps but infertile for whatever reason
subtle!
no subject
Date: 2007-02-06 03:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-07 03:03 am (UTC)Because you know, being able to get married is some kind of "special rights" that will take something away from heteros.
Privelege much?
no subject
Date: 2007-02-07 04:22 am (UTC)Not to state the obvious or anything, but I neither meant nor said any such thing like that. Twist it however you want though, I guess.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-07 04:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-07 04:30 pm (UTC)The whole "Marriage is just for kids" thing is NUTS. Kids are a HUGE commitment of time, energy and $$$$$. I have three of them, but I also know many childless married couples. It's unbelievably life altering to have kids, whether by birth or adoption, and it's not a choice to be lightly made.
And frankly, I'm all for same-sex marriages. I know gay and lesbian couples who've been together and had stronger relationships thn some of my own heterosexual friends and relations . . .and the APa ruled long ago that there were no negative "side effects" to being raised by gay parents.
I'm guilty of the same thing.....
Date: 2007-02-07 09:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-09 11:11 pm (UTC)