'2010 California Marriage Protection Act' initiative filed; would outlaw nearly all divorces

[Newsjock]

http://ag.ca.gov/initiatives/activeindex.php?active=A
09-0026
Submitted for Title and Summary on September 01, 2009.
"2010 California Marriage Protection Act."

PDF link here: http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i823_initiative_09-0026.pdf

SECTION 1. Title. This act shall be known as the "2010 California Marriage Protection Act."

SECTION 2. Section 7.6 is added to Article I of the California Constitution to read: "No party to any marriage shall be restored to the state of an unmarried person during the lifetime of the other party unless the marriage is void or voidable, as set forth in Part 2 of Division 6 of the Family Code.

Relevant section of the Family Code: http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/code/getcode.html?file=./fam/02001-03000/2210-2212

2210. A marriage is voidable and may be adjudged a nullity if any
of the following conditions existed at the time of the marriage:
(a) The party who commences the proceeding or on whose behalf the
proceeding is commenced was without the capability of consenting to
the marriage as provided in Section 301 or 302, unless, after
attaining the age of consent, the party for any time freely cohabited
with the other as husband and wife.
(b) The husband or wife of either party was living and the
marriage with that husband or wife was then in force and that husband
or wife (1) was absent and not known to the party commencing the
proceeding to be living for a period of five successive years
immediately preceding the subsequent marriage for which the judgment
of nullity is sought or (2) was generally reputed or believed by the
party commencing the proceeding to be dead at the time the subsequent
marriage was contracted.
(c) Either party was of unsound mind, unless the party of unsound
mind, after coming to reason, freely cohabited with the other as
husband and wife.
(d) The consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless the
party whose consent was obtained by fraud afterwards, with full
knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with
the other as husband or wife.
(e) The consent of either party was obtained by force, unless the
party whose consent was obtained by force afterwards freely cohabited
with the other as husband or wife.
(f) Either party was, at the time of marriage, physically
incapable of entering into the marriage state, and that incapacity
continues, and appears to be incurable.

2211. A proceeding to obtain a judgment of nullity of marriage, for
causes set forth in Section 2210, must be commenced within the
periods and by the parties, as follows:
(a) For causes mentioned in subdivision (a) of Section 2210, by
any of the following:
(1) The party to the marriage who was married under the age of
legal consent, within four years after arriving at the age of
consent.
(2) A parent, guardian, conservator, or other person having charge
of the underaged male or female, at any time before the married
minor has arrived at the age of legal consent.
(b) For causes mentioned in subdivision (b) of Section 2210, by
either of the following:
(1) Either party during the life of the other.
(2) The former husband or wife.
(c) For causes mentioned in subdivision (c) of Section 2210, by
the party injured, or by a relative or conservator of the party of
unsound mind, at any time before the death of either party.
(d) For causes mentioned in subdivision (d) of Section 2210, by
the party whose consent was obtained by fraud, within four years
after the discovery of the facts constituting the fraud.
(e) For causes mentioned in subdivision (e) of Section 2210, by
the party whose consent was obtained by force, within four years
after the marriage.
(f) For causes mentioned in subdivision (f) of Section 2210, by
the injured party, within four years after the marriage.

2212. (a) The effect of a judgment of nullity of marriage is to
restore the parties to the status of unmarried persons.
(b) A judgment of nullity of marriage is conclusive only as to the
parties to the proceeding and those claiming under them.

On edit: Initiative filed but not yet cleared for signature gathering. I misread the instructions on the AG's page.

[ddeclue]

1. No way that could be constitutional..is it even REAL?

:eyes:

[WeDidIt]

2. IS this a response to Prop 8?

:shrug:

[Hekate]

16. No. As I said in my post #7, this is the theocrats' next attempt to impose a Christian Sharia Law

They are lunatics. It's not solely about the gays -- it's about their religious world-view and their conviction that God talks to them.

They are lunatics, but they have a lot of money behind them. Go to theocracywatch.org for some real thrills'n'chills.

Hekate

[DebbieCDC]

3. Apparently some whackjob(s) in CA have gathered enough signatures to get this on the November ballot

It's a ballot initiative. Some crackpot(s) think that even IF this gets approved by a majority of voters, it will survive a court challenge. It seems they may have gotten enough valid signatures to get it on the ballot. The wackos are crawling out of the woodwork.

We get these loony things all the time here in Washington State, most of them started by a former watch salesman turned "professional initiative creator" named Tim Eyeman.

[Xithras]

42. It doesn't even have signatures.

They've merely filed the paper and paid the $200. They still have to get the signatures and qualify it before the act will be allowed anywhere near a ballot.

[SheilaT]

4. Well, some of us have been saying for years

that if the conservatives are truly worried about defending marriage, then divorce should be a whole lot more difficult to obtain.

What exactly do you mean that it has been cleared for signatures? Has the California State Legislature actually passed that silliness?

[Hekate]

7. Citizen initiatives get put on the ballot-- that's how we got Proposition 8. But first ...

... they have to pass a number of hurdles: collect a certain number of signatures in petition (it helps if you have someone bankrolling you so you can hire people to collect the sigs), have the language approved by the Secretary of State (I'm pretty sure that's who has to look it over), and ultimately it can go on the ballot.

This marriage stuff is sheer lunacy. You think it was just about gays? Not at all. These are theocrats, and nothing will satisfy them but the Christian equivalent of Sharia Law.

Hekate

[hipnerd]

43. Absolutely correct

I could actually use help getting signatures, if you're interested.

[Xicano]

47. I've looked into California's ballot initiative process for possibly getting marijuana legalization

And here's what one has to do. Here's a link to California's Secretary of State guide on the process of ballot initiatives.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/initiative_guide.htm

[notesdev]

5. might have some merit

It would sure make people think long and hard before making what should be a lifelong commitment. Easy divorce sure didn't help children any.

[Ikonoklast]

6. Neither does two people living together 'for the sake of the children'.

Yeah, let's force people that stopped loving one another to live together, that's the ticket.

[notesdev]

8. The option is not so cut and dry

once there are children involved.

The whole point of respecting marriage as an institution in the first place is because it protects children.

There is real and lasting damage to children of broken marriages - significantly more damage, in general, than to children of loveless marriages.

I'm not saying I got the answers here, just saying that I don't think the well-being of children should be a non-factor, as it is today.

[tabatha]

10. When children are grown divorce should be allowed.

And some marriages are so bad, that there should be divorce for the sake of the children.

[Matariki]

20. divorce 'should be allowed'??!

I can't believe I'm even reading shit like this here.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

22. I'm stunned.

My mother left my father when I was two because he was an abusive drunk. But it doesn't even matter *why* she left him. It's her life and her choice and she did what she thought was best for us and that is the only thing that matters.

[tabatha]

23. Sorry, the run-on sentence countered that.

I should have expressed that better.

[truebrit71]

39. No kidding right?!

:crazy:

[Dogtown]

49. Seriously, Matariki!

Some of these comments are medieval, and sound curiously like Dogma.

Divorce should no more be disallowed than marriage should be.

Courts should have NO say in divorce other than dissolving the legal contract and dividing the spoils.

[Mr Generic Other]

17. actually i believe that much of the "damage" to children

during and after a divorce is the result of gender specific, economic inequality.
divorced women, with children living at home' often live in poverty and being poor in america is truly destructive. everything in our society and economy is geared to make life harder for the poor, to blame the poor for their own poverty and to despise them for being the burdens they are. we have so successfully vilified the poor that even the poor in america hate the poor. this is destructive.
many children from broken homes or who become orphaned grow to be perfectly healthy, well-balanced individuals. children need love, direction, food and shelter. it doesn't have to come from biological parents.
if we lived in communities that cared for each of their members (universal health care, well supported public schools, public utilities that insured access to water and power, sponsored an economy that did not require two adults to work full-time to support their families, etc.) having the support of two, live-in parents would not matter as much as it does in the dog-eat-dog world we have created.

[notesdev]

19. I'm not sure about the gender specific part

but on your main point, I agree. I don't know if you've seen Elizabeth Warren's presentation on how the economy is now geared towards 2-earner families, but if you haven't, it's quite an eye opener:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

[Mr Generic Other]

24. thank you for the link.

i have not seen this yet but soon will remedy that.
it is my personal analysis that our economy is still largely a plantation model economy. different cash crops but workers, like other resources, are to be used for profit.

[Dogtown]

48. That's, like, just your opinion, Man.

And it is a very flawed opinion, discounting the hatred and violence that often ensues in forced marriages.

It's naive, at best.

[tabatha]

9. It will probably make more people terrified of marriage.

[tyedyeto]

18. Merit?

So, even with young children, and your spouse is screwing around with someone else.... no divorce for you? Or there is spousal or child abuse in the home? No divorce??? Healthier for the children for the parents to stay together?

Give me a fucking break, I'm not staying in a marriage that is doomed because of one or more factors.

[armyowalgreens]

37. Coming from divorced parents, I can say with confidence that you don't know...

what you are talking about.

[Ikonoklast]

40. As the sole custodian of three children, I KNOW he doesn't have a clue.

The court agreed with me to remove my ex-wife from anything to do with raising my children. After they turned eighteen, it was up to them if they wanted to have anything to do with her.

If I was forced to have been married to her, I would have taken the kids and fled the state.

Marraige is sometimes the *worst* situation kids are forced to live under.

[Stephanie]

11. That is awesome!

I suggested that at DU during the Prop H8 fight, so glad others thought of it too. Brilliant!

[msongs]

12. agreed time that HETEROSEXUALS got effed over by moral purists n crackpots. nt

[Critters2]

15. + 1 nt

[beyurslf]

13. I actually think divorce should be banned. It is the only real threat to marriage.

[Dogtown]

50. So, she dumped you, right?

RUNN OFT, as it were. Must have been lookin' fer answers...

[ruggerson]

14. Maybe this will finally wake straight people up

cause this sucker's aimed right at them.

[David Zephyr]

35. Sadly, some here don't see the brilliance of the initiative.

The one thing that Proposition 8 taught me is how INSECURE heterosexuals are about their marriages. That's all we heard. The "institution of marriage" is on the brink. OMG!

Well, here's a chance for the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church to really kick in their money this time to really do something to "save heterosexual marriages".

Let's see how all of the churchy hypocrites that wail and gnash their teeth about "saving marriage" react to this. Of course, we already know how they will react, don't we?

They never believed that heterosexual marriages were truly threatened by the two elderly lesbians living together on the corner of their street the past 35 years. Of course not!

They don't give a shit about saving marriages, they just wanted to discriminate against gay people and preserve their privilege to do so legally. Hence, Proposition 8.

This will only expose their hypocrisy when they don't get on board with money and passion. Their silence will scream.

Save Marriage! On with the initiative. Where can I sign up.

[FreeState]

21. This is an effert to confuse voters at the ballot with a 2010 Prop 8 repeal

Make no mistake they want something so bad everyone will just vote no on both props stopping a repeal of prop 8 that will need a yes vote.

[windoe]

25. Some people want to create Hell on Earth.

Their dream of this world is a freakshow, a nightmare, and based on fairy tales, not the ways of this world.

What this is proposing is repression and a denial of civil rights, so ideally it should not be given the dignity of consideration.

[Nikki Stone1]

26. Maybe the fundies are counting on conservative Calfornians and angry gays to vote yes

It's cynical and nasty. And scary as hell. And whose money is behind this?

[Nikki Stone1]

27. "Initiative filed but not yet cleared for signature gathering." OK, We'll watch this one.

I'd still like to know who is behind it.

[abumbyanyothername]

28. Marcotte's politics seems left leaning

The guy who filed the petition seems left leaning.

http://www.badmouth.net/

[hipnerd]

30. I resent that

I resent the implication that I am left-leaning or somehow less than sincere. I simply want to accomplish in a single sentence what Prop 8 utterly failed to do -- "protect traditional marriage" in the most effective way possible.

Jesus was quite clear that getting divorced was a sin:

The Gospel of Mark, Chapter 10

9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.
11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.
12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.

He didn't mention being gay once -- probably a clerical oversight.

I would think this is a cause that even secular progressives could get behind. I wasn't quite ready to unveil the initiative yet, but you have forced my hand a bit. I've created a Web site that hopefully will clarify the goals of the 2010 California Protection of Marriage Act.

http://rescuemarriage.org

Think of the children.

John Marcotte
Defender of Matrimony

[Pangolin2]

36. Yeah, Jebus, the son of Gawd was plagued by clerical oversights.

:eyes:

[truebrit71]

38. Good luck with that...

:rofl:

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[treestar]

29. In California of all places

No way will that pass! :rofl:

[Initech]

31. OK the theocrats have gone completely off the deep end with this one.

Makes you wonder what they have in store next. :yoiks:

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

32. Maybe this will encourage people to keep "living in sin" and not marry too easily

and to think twice about entering an irreversible marriage. Maybe they should rename it the "Promotion of Unwed Sexual Intercourse Act".

[truebrit71]

33. Wow...that one ain't gonna fly...

..

[RidinMyDonkey]

34. Holy crap

That's fucking scary. Why would they even care who gets divorced? I mean really, this is absurd.

[Generic Other]

41. So the Death of Marriage Act?

Or as my father would have labeled it "The Shacking Up Act."

[Philly_Bluntz]

44. You do realize...

That this is designed to show how ridiculous the Fundies are in attacking gay marriage. You're all getting worked up over something that isn't even serious, but is directed at the people that we are fighting against.

The author of every post's profile is as follows:

'John Marcotte is a proud Christian and firm believer in traditional marriage. He has a loving wife and two beautiful children. He currently opposes "socialized medicine," MSNBC's entire prime-time line-up and extending domestic-partner benefits to Bert and Ernie.'

Bert and Ernie? Really?

[Freddie Stubbs]

45. Funny, but it will never get enough signatures to get on the ballot

[Echo In Light]

46. This perverse empire never fails to astonish