Marriage is for child-bearing couples only?

Originally Posted by the article

However, Gadow noted that the Supreme Court's majority decision specifically mentioned procreation throughout.

The opinion written by Justice Barbara Madsen concluded that "limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the state's interests in procreation and encouraging families with a mother and father and children biologically related to both."

This is what prompted the highly satirical proposed law. They are simply turning the state Supreme Court's words against them, in an effort to illuminate how ridiculous their decision was, and how silly their stated reasoning was. By saying "Ok well if you are against gay marriage because of no ability to procreate, then you are saying that the purpose of marriage is procreation." Of course when the state Supreme Court denies that, they are openly admitting that their own personal bias against gay marriage was the true reason that they made their ruling, not the reason that they stated.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by drex

but what happens if the voting populace decides it's wacky enough to pass?

Originally Posted by the article

Gadow said that if the group's initiatives were passed, the Supreme Court would be forced to strike them down as unconstitutional, which he believes would weaken the original ruling upholding the Defense of Marriage Act.

Why not fight fire with fire; silly law with silly law?

There's nowhere I can't reach.