Wednesday, February 14, 2007

WASHINGTON DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE

MOOSE:

I'm sure that this is getting a fair bit of press in Bud's neck of the country. I'll excerpt it below. Suffice it to say, some crazy liberals obviously enjoy tweaking the religious right:

On July 26, 2006, the Washington Supreme Court issued their ruling on Andersen v. King County, decided jointly with Castle v. Washington. These cases sought to overturn Washington’s Defense of Marriage Act, which bans same-sex couples from the hundreds of rights, protections and privileges which state law provides through marriage. In their ruling, the Supreme Court claimed a “legitimate state interest” in defining marriage exclusively for the purpose of procreation and child-rearing. The justices then used this interest to declare that same-sex couples are properly barred from marriage because they are incapable of procreating.

In response, a group of concerned citizens formed the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance this past August. 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. Over the next few years, we will propose three initiatives to the people, each focusing on a different aspect of Andersen. The first initiative will make procreation a requirement for legal marriage. The second would prohibit divorce or separation when a married couple has children together. The third would make having a child together the equivalent of marriage.


On these links you will find: the press release; the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance's homepage; and the actual text of the Act.

My favorite part is where the Andersen court mentions Bud's favorite marriage priviledge: spousal immunity (page 6).

5 Comments:

At Wednesday, February 14, 2007 7:46:00 PM, Blogger michael budelsky said...

Moose, I suspect that the benefit of spousal immunity is one of the key reasons that finally pushed you to go ahead and tie the knot. Prior to this, you likely suffered through far too many sleepless nights, tossing and turning with worry over about Kendra testifying against you. Sleep easy, my friend.

The press has been rather circumspect with this ballot initiative because I think they are wary of being used by the organization as a free platform to push their agenda. Nevertheless, there has been a fair amount of discussion about it. The best are the vitriolic letters to the editor from people who are clearly taking this publicity stunt way too seriously.

Frankly, I see the premise for a high quality porno here. Calaway, why don't you put your script writing software to some good use for once and get on this? I'm serious. With the appropriate amount of discretion, I bet you could write something the rest of us would enjoy reading and submitting casting suggestions.

 
At Thursday, February 15, 2007 9:44:00 AM, Blogger Hammond Law Group LLC said...

I've been keeping my mouth shut around Kendra for years. Once we actually get hitched I'm letting her in on all my malfeasance. Then, I say, let them come after me.

 
At Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:44:00 PM, Blogger UCLaw98 said...

Let me get this right, you want me to write a porn movie? While I apreciate the compliment I think Bartish is far better qualified to write such a feature. I think he once said that pornos practically write themselves.

 
At Friday, February 16, 2007 1:51:00 PM, Blogger Montyesq said...

FYI, Bartish, I'm not interested in reading or being casted in a gay porn script.

 
At Friday, February 16, 2007 2:05:00 PM, Blogger Montyesq said...

I'd vote for each and every initiative. The effect of the Initiative would condone polygamy and allow me to maintain control over my bank accounts (without a divorce court forcing me otherwise). All positive in my book.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home