Beautiful Jujitsu

A recent court ruling in the state of Washington allows the state to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. The judge's reasoning was that there is "a legitimate state interest" in ensuring that couples can bear and raise children together. And of course, "some couples" can't do that. Therefore, it's OK for the state to forbid their marrying.

But look -- some cheaters use marriage as an excuse to get into somebody's pants. Some couple marry, have sex, and never produce children. And the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance isn't going to stand for it.

They have three initiatives for following up on the court decision:

The first would make procreation a requirement for legal marriage. The second would prohibit divorce or legal separation when there are children. The third would make the act of having a child together the legal equivalent of a marriage ceremony.

Well, how can the Family Blah Blah groups oppose that?

First, if you don't have kids, you don't get to use the marriage license as a ticket to licentiousness. The proposed change would give people three years after their wedding to have a child. That's plenty of time to show they believe in the traditional family and will fulfill their expected roles as parents. Otherwise, what do you think they're doing, year after year? Like bunnies. Like minks, yeah. But without, y'know, actually starting a family. And the state should give them special privileges for that?

Second, the twist of the knife. If you believe in the family, then you know it is most important to keep the family together, especially when there are children. Prison time is appropriate for attempted divorce with children, don't you think?

Third, why should people who are in hurry to start a family have to wait for big government to finish its paperwork? If you have a child, your baby daddy and you are now husband and wife. Till death do you part.

The Wa-DOMA web site has a marked-up bill, showing just what it would take to fix the law to make Washington a truly family-friendly state:

If passed by Washington voters, the Defense of Marriage Initiative would:

• add the phrase, “who are capable of having children with one another” to the legal definition of marriage;
  
• require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;
  
• require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as “unrecognized;”
  
• establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and
  
• make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits.

Who could be against that?