Last year, the Wasington State Supreme Court ruled against gay marriages, ruling (reluctantly) in Andersen v. King County to uphold its state Defense of Marriage Act, asserting that the state had a ““legitimate state interest” in limiting marriage to those couples able to have and raise children together. From the lead opinion:

Under this standard, DOMA is constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents. [...] DOMA bears a reasonable relationship to legitimate state interests—procreation and child-rearing.

One group in Washington (to point out the absurdity of such a position) has launched an initiative drive to … well …

• 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.

I like it. If that’s the basis the state legislature has established for marriage, then let’s firm up that law to it’s logical conclusion. If that’s not what the legislature or the population of Washington really want … well, perhaps that DOMA ought to be reconsidered.