Here's an idea: Let's copy Washington's I-957 in California.

[Athelwulf]

If passed by voters, Initiative 957 would have required that all marriages recognized by the state have produced offspring within three years of their solemnization. The initiative was created by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, a gay rights group. The goal of Initiative 957 was to directly challenge Andersen v. King County, which holds that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is a legitimate state interest in order to encourage reproduction.

From Wikipedia.

Not that I've actually looked, but I'm sure the same old arguments against marital equality were published in the voters' pamphlet, and the same old arguments were used in the Yes on 8 ads. Well, I've had an idea. Why don't we try to put a measure on the California ballot that would give their arguments the force of law?

I-957 never made it to the ballot, but if it had, it might have sparked some intelligent discussion on the issue. If the fact that same-sex couples cannot naturally reproduce is reason enough to keep us from marrying, then this is reason enough to keep those from marrying who do not plan on having kids at all, or who cannot have kids. And if the latter premise is false, it's because the former is also false.

California's legal situation is different from Washington's, so if we were to do this, we might have to tweak our goal. This hypothetical ballot measure would be a response to the passage of Prop 8, essentially a general question on an issue, and not to a state supreme court ruling backed by a specific legal argument. But it's nothing major.

Thoughts on this? Here are some prompts, to spur discussion:

1. Should the measure address most of the arguments we can think of, or should it have a narrow focus like I-957 did? If the latter, then what kind of focus?
   
2. I wouldn't actually want this to pass, and neither would most people who might like this strategy, so I think the measure would qualify as frivolous. Should this measure be openly acknowledged to be frivolous, or should the organization to push this measure through be "serious"? Should it be the Jon Stewart or the Stephen Colbert of ballot measures?
   
3. If it were coupled with a measure to repeal Prop 8, then voters would realize what a mistake Prop 8 was, and at the same time they'd have a chance to vote differently on the original question. This might be a winning strategy. If the repeal of Prop 8 were saved for later, then voters will probably have forgotten about the first one, and we might fail. Would it be worth the effort to put a pair of measures on the ballot? Or should the other measure be saved for later?
   
4. Should this be a statute or a constitutional amendment? If California, in its kookiness, passed the measure somehow, a statute is easily changed. But on the other hand, a constitutional amendment might make people more carefully consider the measure.
   
5. Oh, right: Is this feasible? California is huge, so we'd need a shitload of signatures, and it might be tough to get them. Maybe we should remember our creed, "Yes we can"?

I'm very interested in this idea, and it would be totally awesome if it became more than just hypothetical. It's a crazy idea. Perhaps so crazy it might work!

[Athelwulf]

1. Bump.

I want some feedback on this idea.

[RetiredTrotskyite]

2. Hey...

It works for me! Let's call these pricks on their silliness that we cannot marry because the marriage does not produce children. Give em a little taste of their own medicine.

[Athelwulf]

3. Awesome.

Do you live in California, by chance? What do you think about the feasibility of this measure, namely, getting enough signatures? I read that the Secretary of State recommends getting a million of them in case some of them can't be verified.

[Athelwulf]

4. I'm wondering why this thread isn't gaining traction.

Please, if anyone thinks this is a stupid or hopeless idea, tell me how. I want feedback.