Oh please - this initiative is merely pointing out the fallacy of right-wing anti-gay-marriage arguments by (hypothetically) forcing conservatives to admit that marriage should not be limited only to people who have children. Much like several Democratic congressmember's proposals to reinstate the draft, it's not serious, but simply a new method of proving a point.

Are you seriously saying that because of an initiative designed to show how silly opposition to gay marriage is, you are suddenly going to be opposed to gay marriage? On what grounds? The grounds that this initiative mocks as ridiculous?

A few thoughts:

1.) Though I think the initiative idea is counterproductive in the end, there are a few benefits. For example, by adopting the name 'Defense of Marriage Alliance' it simultaneously discredits the 'Defense of Marriage Act' in the public mind. Additionally, as the website points out, if actually passed, it would almost certainly be struck down by the state supreme court, thereby undermining a basis for its previous holding in Anderson v. State.

2.) The state supreme court did not say that one of the purposes of marriage is procreation; the court said that, given the greatest possible degree of deference, the legislature was entitled to BELIEVE that was a purpose. (There is some debate as to whether the proper standard was to give the legislature such deference)

3.) I feel this editorial is a bit of a knee-jerk reaction. As other commenters have already suggested, it is a bit inappropriate to withdraw support for a principle merely because one disagrees with a tactic employed by certain individuals advocating that principle. (Should one abandon Christianity merely because certain Christian sects engage in abhorrent practices?)

I think that Kam, Patrick, and John all articulated what I wanted to say very well, but I'd also just want to add one more point. Right now in the U.S., gay Americans are being oppressed by their own government who is denying their right to marry. This is not unlike many other groups in our history(African-Americans, women being denied the right to vote, etc.). In order for real change to happen, it is almost always necessary to take extreme political actions; this has been done in the form of demonstrations, protests, and in this case making a point by legislation. The actions that this group is taking is no more ridiculous than the government that is oppressing them. I am proud that this group is standing up to the government who has denied them their rights as citizens of the United States of America, and I think that in the future we will all look back in disbelief at the injustices being done today.

Here's another point to ponder... As a employee, I can marry a complete stranger and immediately sign him up at the UW Benefits Office with no questions asked (other than his SSN). If I were a lesbian seeking benefits for my partner, I would need to provide proof that we had lived together for at least six months, a copy of a shared lease or mortgage, shared power-of-attorney, have joint ownership of a vehicle, shared bank accounts, be primary beneficiaries in each other's wills, and more. I've been married for nearly 10 years and still couldn't couldn't come up a fraction of the documentation required of same-sex domestic partners to obtain medical and pension benefits. Now, imagine jumping through all those hoops and still not gaining access to marriage benefits that are granted on a federal level such as social security rights or favored immigration status. That is what galls me, not that others may not share my (ir)reverence for the institution of marriage.

I remind Mrs. Korst that the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance is not the ones who would make procreation a prerequisite for marriage: the Washington Supreme Court has already done this. All we are doing is putting an extant ruling of the state Court into statutory form. If she has issues with this, her concerns would be better directed to Associate Justice Barbara Madsen, Associate Justice Charles Johnson and Chief Justice Gerry Alexander.

First of all, when you talk about marriage, you say "at the discretion of religious institutions," but there is a big difference between civil marriage and religious marriage. Just thought I'd point that out.

Second, I don't know what you're so worried about. Only good can come from this (for those of us who are in support of same-sex marriage). If you're worried about your marriage being annulled, don't. If passed, I-957 WILL get struck down as unconstitutional. Heterosexual marriage is a fundamental right (See Loving v. Virginia and Zablocki v. Redhail). The point here is not to undermine the institution of marriage. The point is to extend equal rights to gay and lesbian couples, and if you honestly believe that the proponents of I-957 are "immature" then you obviously aren't as sympathetic to the plight of gays and lesbians as you think you are (or once were).