Gay Marriage Advocates Try to Force Hetero Couples to Have Children

This is an interesting bill:

"An initiative filed by proponents of same-sex marriage would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriage annulled."

...

"'For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation ... The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine,' said WA-DOMA organizer Gregory Gadow in a printed statement. 'If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage.'"

Revenge. That seems like a great reason to enact legislation.

Of course Gadow misses the point entirely. Same-sex marriage proponents never attempt to get what they want through legislation -- they know they'll lose, even somewhere as liberal as Massechusetts, where the governor had to sue the legislature to try to get them to put a popularly-approved petition on the ballot. Instead they use the courts, on the principal that it's easier to persuade five out of nine (or four out of seven) tenured academics to impose force marriage on the population than it is to persuade 50% of the population of any state to voluntarily adopt it. And therein lies most conservative opposition: I don't want judicial tyrants re-casting society to fit their social engineering fantasies.

All that said, I don't have any real problem with Gadow's initiative. He is appropriately trying to use democratic processes to make his point (stunt though it is) to persuade people of his viewpoint, rather than trying to impose it against the will of the vast majority of his state. He'll lose, of course. And he knows that. But the initiative process lets the people of Washington decide how they want their society to look, rather than telling them how their society must be.

"Opponents say the measure is another attack on traditional marriage..."

Well obviously. Gadow's whole purpose is to garner support for gay marriage, which is by definition an attack on traditional marriage (in the sense of an attempt to abolish traditional notions and substitute something in its place).

"...but supporters say the move is needed to have a discussion on the high court ruling."

Since when do you need legislation to "have a discussion"?