Fire with fire, eh? I just stumbled across this facinating story of gay-marriage supporters who have decided to collect signatures for a November ballot initiative in Washington. The ballot would effectively limit marriage only to couples who want to have children. Those who didn’t have children in three years would see their marriages dissolve in the eyes of the law.

Now, of course, this action is a parody of the Supreme Court’s decision to deny gays the right to marry because their unions aren’t “for the purpose of procreation.” And of course it would never pass, but it certainly is making its point. Interesting tactic, and amusing to me because while I’ve always been in support of gay marriage, I’ve always been anti-marriage and, well, anti-procreation for myself (personally, not generally, of course.) But is this the right way to get things done?

“We want people to think about the purpose of marriage,” says Gregory Gadow of the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance (DOMA.) “If it exists for the purpose of procreation, they must understand then that these are the consequences.”

He thinks that by striking down his bill, the courts would be forced to confront its decision in the gay-marriage case. There aren’t a lot of pro-gay-marriage groups willing to come forward and support Washington’s DOMA, likely because it seeks to strip rights from those who choose to stay childless in marriage.

Do you think the parody furthers the fight?