The “Mother” of all Initiatives

Jimmy: [Scrolling through Wa. Sec. of State Initiative website]  Hmmmm… yet another Tim Eyman (and the Fag’n brother’s) tax initiative… funny, this one want’s us to have a two thirds legislative vote to raise taxes… what a wart.  Oh good… another one that amounts to about the same thing.  Man this guy really doesn’t like taxes!  Oh well, he’s a wart.  Oh yes next… citizen counselors… why how pissed they would get when they don’t get their way?  Oh well, they are not in fact, legislators (those elected official types and I guess just picking up the phone or writing a letter to contact your legislator just isn’t enough).  Heck, things could be worse but… wait… oh my look at that.  We gonna have babies !

This measure would restrict marriage to a male and a female who are capable of having children together. Couples would be required to declare their ability to procreate children together in order to obtain marriage licenses. If a couple failed to procreate children within three years of marriage, their marriage would be subject to annulment. All other marriages would be defined as “unrecognized.” Persons in unrecognized marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.

Oh Oh, a friend of mine who’s Dad died a bit back Mum, is getting married again… she’s 70 or so I think.  Wonder how they’s gonna pull that off?  Whattabout my daughter.  Heck, I never liked that jerk anyway.  Maybe she’s got an out now?  Awe heck I’m signing that one!

…

Are you cracking up yet?  Holy freaking cow!  Not only is this the most ridiculous (and completely unconstitutional) initiative filing ever. (I think Goldy’s iniative to declare Tim Eyman a Horses Ass had more merit), But it is also one I want to encourage everyone to sign.  In fact, I encourage all of you to volunteer and stand out in the pouring rain and gather signatures.  Wha wha wha why you say?  Because and only because it is so outlandishly ridiculous!  And the underbelly of the religious nut jobs can only be fully expose if this sucker makes it to the ballot.  And also because the absurdity of this initiative is just the point. (Note the irony that I almost took this initiative literally when I first heard about it, kinda scary when that happens…)

And absurdity is just the thing to crack the initiative process egg that so feeds folks like Tim Eyman.  In fact, I am sorely disappointed Tim didn’t come up with this one himself.  But I guess he just wants to make sure his rich daddy folk don’t get taxed at their death or have to provide taxes for things like… roads… bridges… yeah, all under the guise of defending folks like you and me.

There is only one initiative I have seen in this list so far that makes sense. It is a poorly promoted (and written) initiative… about initiatives (written by a Kennewick resident no less).

Prohibition against dangerous initiatives & referenda is essential in every aspect & this initiative will do just that.

I think a strongly written initiative like this could have some momentum.

Update: This comes from Sagebrusher (another Eastern Wa. local on the right):

Name one mainstream conservative that says marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation.  The point this person is trying to spin is the obvious fact that most marriages result in children, which is absolutely true.  Same sex couples are not being “barred from marriage because they can not have children together”, in fact they are not barred from marriage at all.  They just have to play by the same rules the rest of us do.

Uh huh… well, in fact they are barred from legal marriage… And are also not allowed, in more instances than not, to play by the same rules as the rest of us.  Please Hindu, tell me why republicans care if gay folk have the same rights as married folk. 

Jimmy on February 5, 2007 | Filed Under General

9 Comments

Julie in Boise  on February 5th, 2007

I so wish I could sign this!!

We’d try something like this in Idaho, except it would probably backfire here and actually pass.

Jimmy  on February 5th, 2007

Just imagine the self reflection Idaho would have if it did?

Dave Gibney  on February 6th, 2007

It needs to pass. Then, when challenged in the court, thw WA Supremes would be forced to rescind their previous absurd ruling.

Hindu  on February 13th, 2007

Of course they have the same rights. Any gay man can marry any lesbian woman, or any other woman he chooses. We all have the same rights.

People who want to have sex with someone of the same gender should be allowed to do so, and should be given all contractual and estate rights as everyone else.

But marriage has always meant a man and a woman. The silent, massive majority should not be forced to change that institution so that a group of angry activists can feel better about themselves.

Jimmy  on February 13th, 2007

You know, if some people are so offended by gay couples using the word “marraige”, I tend to say “let them have it”. Because you nailed it Hindu. It is about the rights these couples do not have that is at issue. They can essentially say they are in fact married with all the parental, medical, and financial rights we have if they are granted that through one legislative process or another. I suspect there are many who disagree and want the word marriage to be applied in both camps. But one solution to this may be to remove the word “marriage” from the legal documents, allow same sex couples to enter into “legal unions” and let folks define the rest for themselves.

But that won’t work will it… You and I know that this is really about one groups perception on morality vs. anothers.

Darci  on February 14th, 2007

Here’s my take on it, which seems to essentially jibe with the previous 2 posts: make clear the distinction between religious marriage and civil unions. For instance, my husband and I were married by a judge, not a clergyman. Although we consider ourselves married, I would technically categorize that as a civil union. So what’s wrong with the state concerning itself with civil unions and letting the various religions make their own rules about who can or can’t get “married”? What say you, Hindu?

Kristina  on February 15th, 2007

As much as I love seeing the anti-gay establishment writhe around uncomfortably, I think that the initiative is a bad idea. You know if nutjobs like Ann Coulter get wind of it, the amount of negative spin they would spew forth to conservatives would be unnerving. And they would believe her.

For the record, I think splitting “marriage” and “civil union” into two different categories is much like splitting “white” and “negro” drinking faucets and bathrooms. The only reason behind it is moral superiority, misinformation, and hate – pure and simple.

Jimmy  on February 15th, 2007

I figure that if we could get gay couples the same legal rights as everyone else, that important part of the issue would be solved. Myself, I could live without the “marriage” word fueling the partisan fires for awhile because I really don’t care what anyone calls it. A pragmatic solution to a long term problem with “definitions”.

But the sad fact is, opponents of gay marriage will oppose civil unions regardless. It isn’t as much about the marriage as it is about imposing moral authority.

Darci  on February 15th, 2007

Uh, Kristina, maybe you missed the part where I said I’m in a civil union. I am not motivated by moral superiority, misinformation, or hate, nor are lots of other people who feel this way. I am motivated by a desire to seperate a religious institution from a state institution. The states should sanction civil unions (gay or straight) because they are fair, decent, and support a cohesive, stable society. Religions can sanction whatever they see fit to sanction as marriage- it’s not for the state or people outside those religions to get overly nosey about that.