Movement under way in California to ban divorce

[kpete]

Source: Associated Press

Movement under way in California to ban divorce

By JUDY LIN (AP) – 6 hours ago

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.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ityjaAAMYI7StNV2uur-vrfyGuFgD9CA3KB80

[mitchtv]

1. i'll vote for it

MOTIVE- revenge

[EFerrari]

5. Can I please check to see if mine is final first?!

LOL

[dana_b]

86. +1

we might just get in under the wire. ;)

[ShockediSay]

26. Now THAT's defense of marriage

in a most meaningful, relevant way.

Think of the money Rush Oxycontin would have saved
what with, as I recall, three divorces.

[lsewpershad]

91. SO WOULD I

[Double T]

2. ban divorces so the murder rate can increase.

brilliant.

[HuckleB]

4. You didn't read the article before you responded, did you?

[Double T]

10. Satirical Legislation deserves a satirical response.

[HuckleB]

14. Sorry, but your response wasn't satirical.

Try again. Honesty is a good thing. And that includes admitting your mistakes.

[ExPatLeftist]

39. Uhhhh, IMO that was pretty obviously a joke.... n/t

[HuckleB]

72. Sorry, but offering up that old knee-jerk response is not satire.

[Double T]

58. Legislators in California are a joke. The legislation was a joke; so was my response.

Why so serious over an idiotic issue and a silly joke. Lighten up.

[HuckleB]

73. I asked you why you were so serious about it.

You went to the old "it's a joke" ruse.

Whatever.

[SkyDaddy7]

79. "Idiotic Issue"??

Are you referring to the proposal to ban divorce or equal rights for GLTB...Prop 8 is way more "idiotic" than banning divorce...Or do you disagree?

[Lost-in-FL]

8. Of course the murder rate will increase

Just like hate crimes against GLBT increased the further churches pushed their anti-gay agendas.

[Double T]

60. GLBT has made a lot of progress against the anti-gay agendas.

It will take time to squash THEM completely.

[mitchtv]

13. hey it's only strait people

[anachro1]

53. Look on the bright side

These unhappily married people could focus on killing each other and leave the rest of the world ALONE.

[Double T]

63. I'm for ANYTHING that reduces constant fighting and lowers the overpopulation level.

Unhappy married people extreme cage matches titled: "Fight to the Death Do Us Part" sounds like a great new reality TV show.

[HuckleB]

3. Nice work, Mr. Marcotte!

[wryter2000]

71. The t-shirts

The t-shirts say "Until death do us part. You're not dead yet."

[Bozita]

6. I posted that same story here in LBN a few hours ago. It got 20 Recs. It's in the CA Forum now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=141

The state forum dungeon.

[obliviously]

9. It doesn't matter

to a lot of these people. They don't read what's already posted. They just dive in and post.

[kpete]

59. Bozita

i get sent to a dungeon almost every day lately.
so, it must me an honor?
kp

[Bozita]

84. Still can't figure out what made this article unacceptable for LBN.

Now it's on DU's homepage as one of the "Greatest" threads.

Gotta love it!

[StarfarerBill]

7. Brilliant!

If only it was real...many of the the homophobes would soon be begging to have divorce reinstated and would agree to anything, including support for gay and lesbian marriage.

[boppers]

11. Ooh, ban re-marriage too!

Ya know, in case they went to, or came from, another state that recognized traditional marriage less.

:evilgrin:

[Bozita]

12. How about re-marriage ok if spouse is dead? Can you picture the results?

[One_Life_To_Give]

43. only after first having a child with the sibling of your deceased spouse!

Have to keep the church pews full, ya know.

[Joe Bacon]

15. The Mormons need to walk the walk besides talk the talk.

It's only fair that we make them follow their rules.

[AzNick]

18. Mormons divorce a lot and use contraception

Yup, they do. I know. Some even cheat on their husband with non-Mormons. I know.

[Joe Bacon]

29. Which is why we need to make them follow the rulebook!

Yesiree, if EVERY marriage needs protecting, then there should be no divorce.

[SergeStorms]

49. They have the top secret..........

magic underwear to protect them from all the bad things in life.

I gotta get me some of them magic skivvies. :think:

[mac56]

55. Oh, no, now you've done it.

I once got pilloried in every direction, called every name in the book, right here on DU, for making good-natured fun of the "temple garment."

Just want to prepare you for what's in store.

[AzNick]

68. It's not "magic", stop with that :)

It's supposed to be white and a symbol of purity. Not more, not less.

And yes, they're expensive tighty withies.

[pitchforksandtorches]

16. Vote Yes on No

[thelordofhell]

17. Governor Ah-nuld should have ordered everyone married in CA to divorce

Since according to him gay marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

[AzNick]

19. They should ban marriage, actually

That way, no divorce.

And if gay folks cannot get married, then nobody should.

[defendandprotect]

31. Agree -- eliminate marriage :: eliminate divorce -- Voila!

[Bette Noir]

62. Didn't they do that in Texas?

[KamaAina]

77. Actually, Texas may have banned all marriage by mistake

due to poor wording of a same-sex marriage ban. :rofl:

[Bucky]

20. Cute, but wouldn't this new law effectly destroy Calinfornia's economy?

I'm pretty sure divorce lawyers are the state's last remaining profitable industry. On the on other hand, how ironic if protecting marriage ended up destroying America.

[tomm2thumbs]

21. Count me in - love is too important /nt

[Hulk]

22. Oh yeah...now we are focused on some real important shit.

How absurd. How about we ban marriage?? Makes a lot more sense. Then we don't have to fight to get the same benifits for gays.??

[elleng]

23. Supported by gun dealers, eh?

[Luciferous]

24. Ha! K&R nt

[kestrel91316]

25. I am SO TOTALLY ON BOARD WITH THIS! LOL

Come on. We gotta call their bluff. They only CLAIM to care about protecting traditional marriage. What they really want is to punish gays for the fact of their "gayness" by denying them basic human rights.

Two can play at the denial of human rights game.

[mackerel]

27. Do you think it will solve California's budget woes? LOL

[kestrel91316]

76. No idea. Doesn't matter. It WILL make the RW put their money where their

fat mouths are in manner of speaking.

[salguine]

28. He should have really gone the extra mile and proposed legislation to

make adultery a prosecutable offense punishable by prison time.

[pollo poco]

33. that's not right!

Adultery is punishable by stoning. The bronze age text says so.

[lib_wit_it]

40. Yes! I think we should support this in a non-satirical way. If those RW fuckers want to dictate to

others based on biblical mumbo jumbo, they need to be willing to live by it. (I say non-satirical in that it will never pass, but will make a greater point if pushed with as straight a face as possible.)

[TexasObserver]

30. Recommend

[bc3000]

32. I support this amendment. We should do the same in Florida.

[opihimoimoi]

34. Divorce Tax is the perfect answer

[boppers]

36. And by "Tax" you mean...

..stoning?

[pnwmom]

35. Another factual error about the R.C. Church. (At the link.)

It is an error to say the Church prohibits divorce. It doesn't prohibit a civil divorce. Any Catholic can get one and remain in good standing.

What the Church doesn't allow is a Church re-marriage after a civil divorce. To get a second Church marriage, one would have to have a Church annulment of the first marriage, saying that the first marriage wasn't "sacramental."

[pundaint]

38. Then the Pope says it's ok for a gay civil marriage?

[pnwmom]

42. I don't follow your logic. n/t

[ProfessorGAC]

44. Not An Annulment

An anulment is only granted by the R.C. church in the event of non-consummation.

After consummation, the process involved is called dissolution.

My mom worked for the diocese in their canon law section. 99% of what they did was dissolution and annulment. She worked there to the day before she died.

So, i know more about this stuff than i ever wanted to.
GAC

[pnwmom]

47. Maybe that was true years ago. But it's not true now.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=409

What is an annulment?

A Catholic annulment, also known as a declaration of nullity or invalidity, is a statement of fact by the Catholic Church. After carefully examining the couple's broken relationship, the Church states that a valid marriage, as the Church defines marriage, never existed. It is not "Catholic divorce," as some have called it, since divorce looks at the moment the relationship broke down and says, "A marriage existed, and now we are ending it." The annulment process says, on the other hand, "From the very beginning, something was lacking that was necessary for this relationship to be called a marriage."

Quite often, what is lacking at the time of the civil contract is one of the essential elements or properties of marriage we have noted. The mature consent of the spouses in undertaking the marriage covenant may also be lacking.

Of course, the Church recognizes the couple's initial love for one another. It also realizes that this love led to some form of relationship. In addition, the Church acknowledges that there was a valid civil contract and recognizes that the spouses were lawfully married in the eyes of the state. Therefore, all children born of this valid civil contract are legitimate, according to the Catholic Church. In keeping with canon 1137, they are known as the legitimate children of a "putative marriage."

[Bluenorthwest]

61. So they are married, sleeping together, but the RCC deems

it an 'annulment' rather than a divorce? What are the metrics? How does a Catholic suddenly realize that their marriage was not 'sacramental' even with the host, priest, alter, the name of Christ and all. Do they say 'it did not take'? Is it an error on the part of the priest that makes it non Sacramental, even though it was done in full Sacramental drama? When they want a divorce, they declare their first marriage 'not marriage', is it a thing one pays for or what? Makes no sense at all to me. None. Can communion be declared to have 'not taken' as well? Confessions, confirmations?
How do they decide?

[Loudmxr]

37. I am tempted to sign the petition just to see what Rick Warren's stance will be.

You know the Catholics are not against divorce. It does not exist for them. So how can they be in favor of banning something that does not exist? :smoke:

[thegoodfight]

41. This made my smile :)

Give the homophobes what they want, traditional Christian values innit?

[Xicano]

45. If that were to make it on the ballot this Californian would vote for it. LOL

And I would be laughing my ass off if it passed. "For richer or for poorer and until death do you part!"

Yes sir, yes indeed! Now that's protecting the sanctity of marriage.

I wonder what hypocrisy bs the nut cases over at faux will have to say? LOL



Peace,
Xicano

[Jester Messiah]

46. Heh. "Just like it says in the bible."

Bravo Mr. Marcotte!

[SergeStorms]

48. Love it!

It puts the ball back in the court of the "sanctity of marriage" morons. How can they NOT support this without looking like the total hypocrites they are? Brilliant move. :applause:

[orbitalman]

50. I certainly think he's right. n/t

[Joanne98]

51. The conservatives will probably vote for it!

[handmade34]

52. excellent

and until marriage is ok for all:

couple marrying must prove to courts their intent to have family and their worthiness
no divorce
adultry punishable
anal sex is punishable (must have periodic exams)
no marriage if one partner cannot have children (must test before getting license)
a married couple must address the larger community periodically to get approval of their family dynamics
and on...

[Lerkfish]

54. LOL! very funny!

[Odin2005]

56. ROFLMAO!!!

[robo50]

57. Divorce is "unnatural", and not according to God's law. I think

that should be a 50 state wide law, no divorce, nothing but misery for unhappy married couples, it serves them right for being heterosexual in the first place; they had the right to marry and they should have married right!!!
If they didn't marry right in the first place, there's no letting them off with an easy pass.

:sarcasm:

[Bluenorthwest]

64. Fuck satire, if they do not pass this law, they are just open bigots

This should be put on the ballot and it should become law. I would return to CA and work tirelessly to preserve the Sacrament. This is clearly the intent of the people of CA. No divorce ever.

[Subdivisions]

65. I love it! n/t

[question everything]

66. Yeah, LBN, from.... October

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=135248&mesg_id=135248

[BREMPRO]

67. touche! nails "traditional "marriage advocate hypocrites. n/t

[closeupready]

69. Great idea, Marcotte! Make bigots think, if that's possible.

K&R

[wryter2000]

70. I love it

I've already friended them on facebook. I do believe the honest-to-goodness leglislative analyst has come to the conclusion that banning divorce will save CA money. She's passed that along to Jerry Brown, the attorney general.

I'm so hoping this gets on the honest-to-goodness ballot. Imagine the arguments for and against in the voter's pamphlet.

:bounce:

[Jankyn]

74. Poe's Law...

...Here's a great post from the http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/hotflash/blogs/post?oid=1324118">local alt-weekly on RescueMarriage.org's kick-off event.

(...) What was really funny was watching the free-thinking Marcotte tie one of those Christians into knots at a rally last weekend to support RescueMarriage.org. At the “Wedding March on the Capitol,” to kick off signature-gathering for Marcotte’s amendment to ban divorce, the group shared Cesar Chavez Park with some college evangelists who were passing out tracts to the homeless people ('cause that’s what homeless people need: tracts).(snip...more at link)

[valerief]

75. We're just a couple of laws away from women in burquas. nt

[Skidmore]

81. You are so right on. My reaction to this, particularly if it is done in jest, was horror.

There was a time in this nation when women could only get out of marriages with great difficulty and had no power in their lives or efficacy. You cannot right one wrong by creating another.

[KamaAina]

78. Guess who has the highest divorce rate in the country?

That's right. Fundies. :P

[SkyDaddy7]

80. Banning divorce could save the state tons of money...

...At a time when California needs to pinch pennies. No more tying up valuable court time with divorces and child support fights! Excellent Idea!

Plus, the bottomline is if Christians truly want to "protect marriage" then this proposal must pass! If not, then it will confirm what we all know to be true anyway...It is not about protecting marriage it is about HATE, period!

[tonysam]

82. I don't find the humor in it.

The other side could simply call their bluff and actually sign this stupid petition.

[Lindsey]

83. The rational is that gay marriage endangers straight marriage..

which is the stupidest argument I've ever heard. I love this proposal and since I live in California I will sign this petition.

[snooper2]

85. It would be great if that happened

Imagine the court cases

:rofl:

[FiveGoodMen]

87. That should cut way back on marriage

if Californians have any sense at all.

[JonQ]

88. I would ban singular marriages as well

and those not arranged by the families involved.

I'm very traditional: marriage is one 30 year old man and 4-8 teenage girls, done to cement financial or political arrangements. That's just what I believe because it's in the bible and anything else opens us up to all sorts of madness; like one man to one woman, or people the same age getting married, or doing it for love rather than practical reasons or a woman marrying a younger man, or . . .

[AlbertCat]

90. I would ban singular marriages as well

You modernist!

It's obvious that the ONLY truly traditional marriage is clubbing a female (or two) of breeding age on the head and dragging her back to your cave. This is all I will advocate because this is traditional-plus. It's the Sky Spirit's original plan.

[Angry Dragon]

89. Kick and rec

[trickyguy]

92. Way to go John. But

I think we should have a law like the one in the Bible that says that

any married person caught committing adultery should be stoned to death.

That would take care of a lot of the non-traditionalist married folk don't you think?

And might help "protect" traditional marriages even further.:mad:

[varelse]

93. Brilliant

it will get a yes vote from me :P