Anti-gay attorneys Stephen Pidgeon and James Bopp Jr. filed an initiative today titled the "Marriage Is Between One Man and One Woman Act." (Read the full text after the jump.)

The apparent intent is to reaffirm Washington's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), though the strategy is a bit befuddling. If lawmakers repeal DOMA this session and approve same-sex marriage, then this initiative would be unconstitutional (as per Initiative 747), as it would amend a statute that had since been changed. A referendum would be the appropriate route to putting the issue before the people. And if lawmakers put same-sex marriage on the ballot as a referendum, then this initiative would obviously be unnecessary.

Or, perhaps this is just a blatant abuse of the initiative process in an effort to hijack it for the purpose of sending a message (as per Initiative 831)?

I've got a call in to Mr. Pidgeon, and eagerly await his response.

AN ACT Relating to reaffirming the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman; amending RCW 26.04.010 and 26.04.020; and creating new sections.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. This act reaffirms the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Sec. 2. RCW 26.04.010 and 1998 c 1 s 3 are each amended to read as follows:
(1) Marriage is a civil contract between ((a male)) one man and ((a female)) one woman who have each attained the age of eighteen years, and who are otherwise capable.
(2) Every marriage entered into in which either the husband or the wife has not attained the age of seventeen years is void except where this section has been waived by a superior court judge of the county in which one of the parties resides on a showing of necessity.

Sec. 3. RCW 26.04.020 and 1998 c 1 s 4 are each amended to read as follows:
(1) Marriages in the following cases are prohibited:
(a) When either party thereto has a wife or husband living at the time of such marriage;
(b) When the husband and wife are nearer of kin to each other than second cousins, whether of the whole or half blood computing by the rules of the civil law; or
(c) When the parties are persons other than ((a male)) one man and ((a female)) one woman.
(2) It is unlawful for any man to marry his father's sister, mother's sister, daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's daughter or sister's daughter; it is unlawful for any woman to marry her father's brother, mother's brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son or sister's son.
(3) A marriage between two persons that is recognized as valid in another jurisdiction is valid in this state only if the marriage is not prohibited or made unlawful under subsection (1)(a), (1)(c), or (2) of this section.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. This act shall be cited as the marriage is between one man and one woman act.

— END –