I laughed at the expense of the bigots.

The ramifications if this idea passed would be horrific, but we don’t need to worry because it won’t pass. But it expertly demonstrates animosity directed at gays through public policy.

Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced a ballot measure that would require heterosexual couples to have a child within three years or have their marriages annulled.

The measure would require couples to prove they can have children to get a marriage license. Couples who do not have children within three years could have their marriages annulled.

All other marriages would be defined as “unrecognized,” making those couples ineligible for marriage benefits.

Even the organizers acknowledge that it’s absurd, but they’re correct in what it will reveal. For example:

Cheryl Haskins, executive director of Allies for Marriage and Children, said opponents of same-sex marriage want only to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

“Some of those unions produce children and some of them don’t,” she said.

But what about the children? Isn’t that what hate supporters like Ms. Haskins have argued, that same-sex marriage would harm children. So this proposal brings up a wonderful question. If not “for the children,” then what? Naked bigotry is the only answer that seems to fit.

The anti-logic of folks like Ms. Haskins could be carried further than even this plan. Why not a law that, if the two parent, one man and one woman household, breaks up or dissolves for any reason, the state takes custody of the children and places them with a one-man-and-one-woman married couple? Aren’t those children better off being raised in such a home? Let’s eliminate divorce, while we’re at it.

Someone remind me which side is being absurd.