Heh

I've always thought that the best ways to combat the bigoted and blockheaded are either with humor, or by holding a big mirror up to the stupidity.

You've also gotta love a "gotcha," especially when you're using it against those who love to use "gotchas" as a means of supporting their narrow-minded, knuckleheaded behavior.

So, for those against same-sex marriage, who love to say "well, marriage is about procreation," can I just smack you with this little "gotcha?"

Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced a ballot measure that would require heterosexual couples to have a child within three years or have their marriages annulled.

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance acknowledged on its Web site that the initiative was "absurd" but hoped the idea prompts "discussion about the many misguided assumptions" underlying a state Supreme Court ruling that upheld a ban on same-sex marriage.

The measure would require couples to prove they can have children to get a marriage license. Couples who do not have children within three years could have their marriages annulled.

All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized," making those couples ineligible for marriage benefits.

The paperwork for the measure was submitted last month. Supporters must gather at least 224,800 signatures by July 6 to put it on the November ballot.

The group said the proposal was aimed at "social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation."

Hah. Wish I could sign it.

As if that isn't enough, they have two other plans in the works:

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.

[...]

If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who can not or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage. And this is what the Defense of Marriage Initiative will do.

This is the touchiest of touchy subjects; I'm sure there are as many people on "our side" that will be annoyed by this as there are that wholeheartedly support it. I do believe, however, that it pays to keep in mind that this is an act of absurdity; introducing a ballot that has no chance of passing, one that the drafters don't necessarily believe in, as a means of shining the light on the stupidity of the opposing argument.

Tip 'o the energy dome to Steve, who's commenters are a little touchy on this subject. Take a look and see what you think.