The Defense of Marriage Alliance, producers of Initiative 957

I confess my hat is off to Washington's "Defense of Marriage Alliance" for an inspired piece of political theatre. The "same-sex" marriage debate suffers from an excessive seriouness, as do most cultural controversies which afford the Christian Right a chance to stand on a soap box and proclaim their unique insights into the Natural Order of Things. It is so very tiresome. In truth, the patterns of human relation evolve constantly as petty bigotries wax and wane; ultimately, I have always thought, the essential relationship is between a human being and the Planet Earth, which is, oddly, one that gets talked about very little. I think this strange human preoccupation with pronouncing normative standards for everyone else's approach to life lies at the root of our present existential crisis, which is to say, the danger that we're creating a world uninhabitable for homo sapiens. There is such a nutty emphasis on living on this Earth in ways that guarantee entrance to the next world that we fail to cooperate on the one essential enterprise that might make life better in the here and now. If we define insanity as an essential failure to adapt to life-enhancing strategies for existence, then it's fair to say that America is one of the craziest societies to arise in the history of the species.

Along comes the "Defense of Marriage Alliance," tongues thrust deeply into cheeks:
(1) All couples married in this state shall have three years from the date of solemnization of the marriage, or eighteen months from the effective date of this act, whichever is later, to have filed with the state registrar of vital statistics or designated deputy registrar at least one certificate of marital procreation as described in section 11 of this act.

"A certificate of marital procreation." That's good right there. A married couple proves they had a kid by producing a birth certificate before the deadline. Initiative 957, accepted by Washington's Secretary of State, reads just like a real statute; indeed, 957 simply amends Washington's form of the "defense of marriage" act, which states as the premise of confining marriage to one man and one woman the unassailable reality that this is where the babies come from. The Washington state Supreme Court recently enshrined this principle in the decision in Andersen v. King County, which DOMA sententiously quotes in the language of the Initiative. DOMA, like the rest of us clear thinkers, knows that the Washington Supreme Court and the Religious Right use the ability to "procreate" as a distinction precisely because it's something homosexuals can't do inter sese. Gay men need to adopt; gay women need a turkey baster or a male friend.

So, in a satirical move worthy of Bertold Brecht, DOMA calls their bluff. Straight couples have three years to produce the goods, to file a "certificate of procreation," or their marriage loses its legal cover. Simply ingenious. Ingenious because it makes everyone, straight and gay alike, a potential victim of an unthinking prejudice, and nothing focuses one's attention on a prejudice like becoming one of its victims. If heterosexuals object to 957 because it "forces" procreation on people who just want to be married and enjoy the rights of married life without having children, then they must confront an uncomfortable truth. They are denying exactly this "lifestyle" to gay people who want to do the same thing. Yet once the "certificate of procreation" requirement is removed, what is the basis for granting straight couples a right denied to gay couples? If straight couples can enjoy the legal sanctity of marriage without coming across with a kid, then why did the Washington Supreme Court rule the way it did in Andersen? Why should straight couples own the exclusive right to marriage on the basis of a potential which they do nothing with?

The Washington Supreme Court and the Religous Right have to state it plainly. They're against gay marriage because they think it's icky. That should be in their next high-sounding opinion. "We hold today, as we must, that the state sanction of marriage must be confined to those instances in which one man and one woman, having undergone solemnization of their union pursuant to lawful statute, choose to live as husband and wife, because other arrangements, like gays wanting to do it, would be too icky."

Personally, I'm beginning to think that marriages should operate under the same system as driver's licenses. Every five years or so, your marriage expires, and you have to take affirmative steps to renew it. No more coasting for anybody. Think of the legal fees it would save, the hassle of filing a court action for divorce. You simply choose not to renew. And by the way, I think I know something the Religious Right doesn't: my vision has a much greater chance of realization than that life they're counting on in the Hereafter.