The "Gay Agenda"

Now this is quite awesome. The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance (which sounds like your average group of right-wing nut-jobs) is actually a a pro-same-sex marriage group that is slapping the Washington Supreme Court with a nice warm glass of shut-the-hell-up.

The group is challenging the state's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, by filing an initiative "to make procreation a requirement for legal marriage." This move forces the courts to come to terms with it's assertion that the primary function of marriage is for procreation, and that thereby same-sex marriage is illegal.

The majority decision in the case stated:

"Therefore, we apply the highly deferential rational basis standard of review to the legislature’s decision that only opposite-sex couples are entitled to civil marriage in this state. Under this standard, DOMA [Defense of Marriage Act] 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. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature’s view, further these purposes. Accordingly, there is no violation of the privileges and immunities clause."

Justice Bridge wrote a dissenting view:

"What we are called upon to do here is address the availability of the civil contract of marriage—the only characterization of the issue presented that permits governmental intrusion into what is otherwise a personal, private relationship between two people. The State’s intrusion is governed by the articles of our constitution. What we ought not to address is marriage as the sacrament or religious rite—an area into which the State is not entitled to intrude at all and which is governed by articles of faith. What we have not done is engage in the kind of critical analysis the makers of our constitution contemplated when interpreting the limits on governmental intrusion into private civil affairs; what we have done is permit the religious and moral strains of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to justify the State’s intrusion. As succinctly put by amici the Libertarian Party of Washington State and the Log Cabin Republicans of Washington: “To ban gay civil marriage because some, but not all, religions disfavor it, reflects an impermissible State religious establishment.”

While I'm not for restricting the rights of any human being, The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance knows full well that this proposal won't be voted into law, but is pointing out that this measure brings the hypocrisy of these rulings into the media.

I say, well played.