Shady's Back...Tell a Friend!

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Marriage is for Babymaking

Dr. Bombay and Gris Gris you've been warned!

Jenny, you're ok. For now.

You better pop out a baby as soon as possible or your marriage may be invalidated.

A group calling itself the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance has begun a ballot initiative process to require procreation as a condition for marriage, so you've been duly warned. More specifically 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.
Hmm, so Jenny it sounds to me like you might have to PROVE that little baby caroline is YOURS and you didn't buy her on the same black market where TomKat bought baby Suri. I can't wait to see you on Maury Povich: "Jenny, you ARE the mother of baby Caroline"

Ok, so are you shocked? What you might find even more shocking is that this the GoodTimesBlog and its authors fully support this initiative. Usually groups out there defending marriage are no fans of the leftist propaganda spewed out on this blog, but these people would be. They are actually on our side! Huh, you ask? Let me explain.

The Washington ruling striking down gay marriage did so on the basis that "legitimate state interest” allows the Legislature to limit marriage to those couples able to have and raise children together. Yup, they pulled the procreation card. So these clever folks are calling them out on it. If that's what you believe make it the law. And if this is made into law, it will be struck down as unconstitutional in a second. And if this is unconstitutional how can it be used as the rational argument for preventing gay marriage.

In other words to all the righties spitting out this bile and calling it a reasonable argument against gay marriage they are saying, "shit or get off the pot!"


*Thanks to for the great drawing*



Blogger sunqinwo said...

Hello! Mozilla Firefox web browser has updated,Please visit my blog,Free download Quickly

1:11 PM

Blogger scooterlulu said...

Welcome sunginwo to the good times blog. You're post is a little off the topic of defending marriage from the barren but you still make a valid point. I'll consider your request.

-scooter & lulu

1:15 PM

Blogger (A Little) Gris Gris said...

I am not comfortable with this, no matter the motives.

The biological clock is pressure enough, and now this?!?!


2:15 PM

Blogger The Pink Totebag said...

Lu, while I may fall into the "okay" blue range, I am sad to say that it took Steve and me a good 4 years of marriage to pop little Caroline out, and so therefore she would be considered a bastard child had we a) had her in Washington State, and b) had her after this stupid law was in place. Gay-straight politics aside, don't we also think that people (liberals and conservatives alike) like my several friends who have unsuccessfully gone through in vitro are going to take minor issue with this, as well? Oh wait, if you are an ultra-conservative, religious-right infertile couple, you don't believe in in vitro... Well, that might be a law worth looking into: "Marriages are only to be considered valid IF the couple is ultra-conservative/religious-right and is not able to, through sexual intercourse, produce a child." That way, this particular "species" would die out. We could even start a dating service to help them meet each other. Maybe that could be something that the GTB sponsors through its site.

2:26 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

This sounds brilliant to us, because the law sounds absurd to us. I'm not convinced the "enemy" will see it as such. Remember, the only reason women got onto the Civil Rights Act is because crazy racists thought "hey if we add women, no way will this thing pass." Joke was on them that time. Makes me worry about this time.

4:04 PM

Blogger scooterlulu said...

I'm not too worried. What's the worst that could happen? 50% of the people I know have their marriages invalidated? Oh wello! Then everybody lives in sin! It will be like we are French! -Lulu

4:39 PM

Blogger scooterlulu said...

Anonymous, that's kind of the point. The enemy may say, "yes, this is what we are talking about"

Not to take the hardline approach, but lets say this absurd thing passes. Then before it can be challenged in a court of law a certain segment of society will feel discrimated based on an unfair condition. They will demand their rights.

It's terrifying to think that something like this could pass because of some crazy right-wingers out there. Terrifying kinda like how VA wont recognize any sort of legal contract between two people of the same-sex.

That said, i'm pretty sure this thing wouldn't pass.


4:49 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let me just say, dear freinds that this might not be as bad as we all think. If we are now able to attach outrageous qualifications to legal definitions, we can really clean things up. Here's an example:

"Anyone who is a registered Republican who has not signed a public affidavit that they cavort with Satan within 3 years of registering to vote shall have their voter registration taken away and be required to kill themselves."

See! Two birds with one crappy law! And all of us can have clean hands because well "the purpose of Republicanism is to cavort with Satan." Everyone knows this, so why not make a law?

Good thing they are the party of small government that does not like to tell people what they can do in the privacy of their own home.

1:56 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scooter, I got the point. My point was that here we are, a half a century later and women are still on the civil rights act. You forget that Bush has been tirelessly stuffing the court system from bottom to top with extremist who just might not pick up on the satire.
All that said, the satire is brilliant.

12:30 PM


Post a Comment

<< Home