Calling the bluff
Here's an interesting take on marriage law in Washington State: legally limit marriage to one man and one woman who are able to have children.
Couples would be required to prove they can have children to get a marriage license. If they did not have children within three years, their marriages would be subject to annulment.
All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized" and people in them would be ineligible to receive marriage benefits.
Clearly this is a ridiculous proposal. I don't think even the most conservative of groups that use language like "children are better off in homes with their married, biological parents" really think couples should not be allowed to be married if they can't or choose not to have children. But it does underscore a significant problem with some of the arguments used to support laws against same-sex marriage. Courts, like the Washington State Supreme Court, have been upholding the constitutionality of Defense Against Marriage Acts (DOMAs) by citing the state's interest in "furthering procreation."
If this is true, if this is really a solid reason why keeping same-sex marriage illegal is in the public interest, then the above initiative makes perfect sense. If procreation is the main reason for marriage, then marriage should only be granted to couples who procreate.
But if this law really is ridiculous, then that means the procreation argument itself is ridiculous. You can't have it both ways.
Good for the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance for calling their bluff.