More stuff in the news

[geminigirl]

The proposed legislation from the equal marriage group Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance. This is an interesting tactic which may help demonstrate how ridiculous marriage legislation can be.

You can if you click the cut.

Press Release
DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE INITIATIVE ACCEPTED BY SECRETARY OF STATE
January 26, 2007

Seattle, WA – The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance (WA-DOMA) announced on Thursday that their proposed initiative to make procreation a requirement for legal marriage has been accepted by the Secretary of State and assigned the serial number 957. The initiative has been in the planning stages since the Washington Supreme Court ruled last July that the state’s Defense of Marriage Act was constitutional.

“For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation,” said WA-DOMA organizer Gregory Gadow in a printed statement. “The Washington Supreme Court echoed that claim in their lead ruling on Andersen v. King County. The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine. 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.”

Mr. Gadow also stated, “Our agenda is to shine a very bright light on the injustice and prejudice that underlie the Andersen decision by giving that decision the full force of law.

If passed by Washington voters, I-957 would:

* add the phrase, “who are capable of having children with one another” to the legal definition of marriage;
* require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;
* require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as “unrecognized;”
* establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and
* make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits.

This initiative is the first of three that WA-DOMA has planned for upcoming years. The other two would prohibit divorce or separation when a married couple has children together, and make having a child together the equivalent of marriage.

The text of I-957 and further information about the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance can be found at the group’s website: www.WA-DOMA.org.


And finally, there are the Snickers ads, which aired during the Super Bowl in the US, which have garnered some attention. A good summary is here.


You can view the ads and the videos of NFL players reacting to it, on YouTube.

Links:

Commercial 1-Motor Oil
Commercial 2-Love Boat
Commercial 3-Wrench
Reactions, part 1
Reactions, part 2

Comments

[vix.livejournal.com]

The Wrench one and the Motor Oil one really bugged me; I smiled at the Love Boat one, I'll admit. But the NFL players' reactions to the commercials was really unnecessary.

[whobunkyboo.livejournal.com]

Thanks for explaining that legislation to me. Because I was beginning to think that legislators in Washington were all freebasing off the backs of the seats in front of them.

[geminigirl]

It's one of those things where if you don't look at the source, it looks like crazy fundamentalists again. I read the press release without telling zedrikcayne the source, and he looked aghast. I think he'd have insisted on moving back to Canada if it were real.

[zurcherart.livejournal.com]

Oh wow. Interesting legislation.

I think it's Snicker's use of the football players disgusted reactions that pushes this over the line. How far over I don't know because I really liked the first ad (and why does no-one pickup on the phallic subtext of the Snicker bar that goes from flaccid to erect before the guy can resist a mouthful). First ad is harmless (imo), but seems like Snickers is asking their darling young gay bashing consumers to realize how disgusting the whole thing is before asking them to pick the appropriate next not so clearly harmless ending. And that's leaving a bad taste in my mouth.

But, I blame Snickers for "directing" and "editting" the interviews in this homophopic direction. I almost feel sorry for the players (I like the one guy that just says how crazy it is they pull out their air -- looks like he's not going to be baited). If Snickers is trying to put together a campaign like this, then they the players are gonna have to show disgust. They "socially" wouldn't be able to have a neutral or positive reaction. The players are being placed in lose-lose situation here. (Seemed to me that a lot of the disgust from the players was feigned, not that feigning disgust isn't homophobic in itself ... but that points to a bigger and more subtle issue.)

Then when I thought about this, what's interesting about this ad is: it is (at least the first one) designed to appeal to gays (admit it almost all of us liked that commercial) and gay-bashers at the same time. Win-Win. For Snickers.

[cmariewt.livejournal.com]

Great icon.