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).