Don't Just Ban Divorce in California. Ban it altogether!
#1
The truly sad and despicable part of this is that the gentleman proposing the ban is doing the right thing for the wrong reason. He wants to support Gay Marriage, and do so by demonstrating how ridiculous a ban on divorce would be. The ridiculous part is how ridiculous the inhabitants of the 21st Century have become since the world became dominated by crass materialism. There are two countries where divorce is still illegal. Another commentator thinks that the Proposition would be overturned if it were ever voted in by some miracle, pointing the fact that the Federal Government would strike it down. Actually, the Judiciary wouldn't tolerate it, they despise and almost universally reject the transcendent and the metaphysical.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Til death do us part? The vow would really hold true in California if a Sacramento Web designer gets his way.

In a movement that seems ripped from the pages of Comedy Channel writers, John Marcotte wants to put a measure on the ballot next year to ban divorce in California.

The effort SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Til death do us part? The vow would really hold true in California if a Sacramento Web designer gets his way.

In a movement that seems ripped from the pages of Comedy Channel writers, John Marcotte wants to put a measure on the ballot next year to ban divorce in California.

The effort is meant to be a satirical statement after California voters outlawed gay marriage in 2008, largely on the argument that a ban is needed to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage. If that's the case, then Marcotte reasons voters should have no problem banning divorce.

"Since California has decided to protect traditional marriage, I think it would be hypocritical of us not to sacrifice some of our own rights to protect traditional marriage even more," the 38-year-old married father of two said.

Marcotte said he has collected dozens of signatures, including one from his wife of seven years. The initiative's Facebook fans have swelled to more than 1,100. Volunteers that include gay activists and members of a local comedy troupe have signed on to help.

Marcotte is looking into whether he can gather signatures online, as proponents are doing for another proposed 2010 initiative to repeal the gay marriage ban. But the odds are stacked against a campaign funded primarily by the sale of $12 T-shirts featuring bride and groom stick figures chained at the wrists.

Marcotte needs 694,354 valid signatures by March 22, a high hurdle in a state where the typical petition drive costs millions of dollars. Even if his proposed constitutional amendment made next year's ballot, it's not clear how voters would react.

Nationwide, about half of all marriages end in divorce.

Not surprisingly, Marcotte's campaign to make divorce in California illegal has divided those involved in last year's campaign for and against Proposition 8.

As much as everyone would like to see fewer divorces, making it illegal would be "impractical," said Ron Prentice, the executive director of the California Family Council who led a coalition of religious and conservative groups to qualify Proposition 8.

No other state bans divorce, and only a few countries, including the Philippines and Malta, do. The Roman Catholic Church also prohibits divorce but allows annulments. The California proposal would amend the state constitution to eliminate the ability of married couples to get divorced while allowing married couples to seek an annulment.

Prentice said proponents of traditional marriage only seek to strengthen the one man-one woman union.

"That's where our intention begins and ends," he said.

Jeffrey Taylor, a spokesman for Restore Equality 2010, a coalition of same-sex marriage activists seeking to repeal Proposition 8, said the coalition supports Marcotte's message but has no plans to join forces with him.

"We find it quite hilarious," Taylor said of the initiative.

Marcotte, who runs the comedy site BadMouth.net in his spare time, said he has received support from across the political spectrum. In addition to encouragement from gay marriage advocates, he has been interviewed by American Family Association, a Mississippi-based organization that contributed to last year's Yes on 8 campaign.

He was mentioned by Keith Olbermann on MSNBC's "Countdown" during his "World's Best Persons" segment for giving supporters of Proposition 8 their "comeuppance in California."

Marcotte, who is Catholic and voted against Proposition 8, views himself as an accidental activist. A registered Democrat, he led a "ban divorce" rally recently at the state Capitol in Sacramento to launch his effort and was pleasantly surprised at the turnout. About 50 people showed up, some holding signs that read, "You too can vote to take away civil rights from someone."

Marcotte stopped dozens of people during another signature drive in downtown Sacramento. Among them was Ryan Platt, 32, who said he signed the petition in support of his lesbian sister, even though he thinks it would be overturned if voters approved it.

"Even if by some miracle this did pass, it would never stand up to the federal government," Platt said. "And if it did, there's something really wrong with America."

http://www.eponymousflower.blogspot.com/
Reply
#2
I can appreciate the sentiment of wanting to ban divorce, but I do think that civil divorce should still be allowed. (Not talking about dissolving sacramental bonds here... just CIVIL divorce.) I say this mostly because it can sometimes be a necessary step for people who are in abusive relationships, etc. Unless I'm mistaken, even the Church allows civil divorce for the sake of safety.
Reply
#3
Tinu, I think you might be missing the point of the campaign.  It's meant to show how "ridiculous" not permitting gay marriage is.  The best possible thing that could happen is that their campaign is successful!  :laughing:  Inadvertently, these folks have really hit the nail on the head.  No-fault divorce is near the top of the slippery slope down which American marriage has been careening at break-neck speed.

The Church does tolerate civil divorce.  A nitpick: The author of the article betrays his ignorance by saying that the Catholic Church forbids divorce but permits annulments.  The Church has no jurisdiction over divorce; it's a state matter.  Annulments aren't "permitted," they are a declaration that there was never a marriage in the first place.  What did or did not take place isn't a matter of permission.
Reply
#4
(11-30-2009, 09:56 PM)SmileBugMK Wrote: Tinu, I think you might be missing the point of the campaign.  It's meant to show how "ridiculous" not permitting gay marriage is.  The best possible thing that could happen is that their campaign is successful!   :laughing:  Inadvertently, these folks have really hit the nail on the head.  No-fault divorce is near the top of the slippery slope down which American marriage has been careening at break-neck speed.

The Church does tolerate civil divorce.  A nitpick: The author of the article betrays his ignorance by saying that the Catholic Church forbids divorce but permits annulments.  The Church has no jurisdiction over divorce; it's a state matter.  Annulments aren't "permitted," they are a declaration that there was never a marriage in the first place.  What did or did not take place isn't a matter of permission.

Matrimony shouldn't be a civil matter at all.
Reply
#5
(12-01-2009, 12:24 AM)Augstine Baker Wrote: Matrimony shouldn't be a civil matter at all.

What you said.
Reply
#6
Government needs to get out of the marriage business and deal with people as individuals, not as members of a group or race or any other distinction....

This would save tax payers money and end one of the culture wars.

Marriage can return to where it belongs, in Church.
Reply
#7
Absolutely, current marriage and family laws have farted in the natural law's general direction.  But moving marriage entirely out of the civil sphere would be a mistake, because marriage has obvious civil effects.  Doing this would guarantee that gays, polygamists, even children would be able to enter into marriage, rendering marriage completely meaningless outside the context of religion.  In an increasingly secular culture, that would be giving up any remaining semblance of family in the culture at large.  Sure it would end one of the culture wars, but not in our favor.  As for saving taxpayers money, I doubt it.  The children of these non-families are probably going to end up relying on some sort of state services.
Reply
#8
(12-01-2009, 01:13 AM)Iuvenalis Wrote:
(12-01-2009, 12:24 AM)Augstine Baker Wrote: Matrimony shouldn't be a civil matter at all.

What you said.
ditto
Reply
#9
The authors logic is quite correct. He is pointing out the hypocrisy of American protestant "conservatives" and their serial "marriages"

Reply
#10
(12-01-2009, 02:27 PM)tradcathgay Wrote: The authors logic is quite correct. He is pointing out the hypocrisy of American protestant "conservatives" and their serial "marriages"

So, just because Marriage is attacked in one way, we should permit vicious assaults on it in different ways?  I fail to see that logic.  ???
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)