The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine.

The Washington State Supreme Court ruled last year that the state did have a legitimate interest in limiting marriage to heterosexual couples. That was bad enough, but the fact that they argued that the state interest in limiting marriage was because only heterosexuals could procreate was ridiculous.

So now, a group fighting for marriage equality, will focus a spotlight on the issue by trying to ensure that only those marriages that strictly meet such a definition can be considered valid:

An initiative filed by proponents of same-sex marriage would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriage annulled.
[...]
Under the initiative, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children in order to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriage would be subject to annulment.

All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized" and people in those marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.

Brilliant.

And this is the reasoning behind the effort:

"For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation ... The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine," said WA-DOMA organizer Gregory Gadow in a printed statement. “If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage."

Absolutely brilliant.

It was about time that someone decided to fight back using the same tools our enemies use against us. This should definitely put in perspective how totally absurd the link between marriage and procreation really is. If we can't get married because we can't have kids, then why should they be allowed to do so?

Their attack is multi pronged as well:

The group plans three initiatives to raise discussion about the ruling, according to their website: "The first would make procreation a requirement for legal marriage. The second would prohibit divorce or legal separation when there are children. The third would make the act of having a child together the legal equivalent of a marriage ceremony."

Again, absolutely brilliant.

Can you imagine if there were laws like that on the books?!

This situation reminds me of the fight to make abortion legal, when someone said, if men could get pregnant, the right to abortion would be in the Constitution.

The situation is similar in that, if the law stated, as can be logically concluded from the same-sex opponents' arguments, that heterosexuals couldn't get married unless they had a child, couldn't divorce once they had a child, or were automatically considered married once they had a child, they'd be changing the law in a heartbeat, believe me.