Proposed Ballot Measure Would Ban Divorce in California?
Morgen on October 24, 2009 at 12:10 am
File this in the “only in California” department. The California Secretary of State today granted approval to begin collecting signatures to the proponents of a ballot measure which would ban divorce in California . Here is the official summary of the measure from the California Attorney General:
ELIMINATES THE LAW ALLOWING MARRIED COUPLES TO DIVORCE. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the ability of married couples to get divorced in California. Preserves the ability of married couples to seek an annulment. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Savings to the state of up to hundreds of millions of dollars annually for support of the court system due to the elimination of divorce proceedings. (09-0026.)
My immediate thought was this has to be a joke. And indeed it is, albeit one which seems to be well orchestrated. It turns out that the ballot measure is the work of one John Marcotte, who has put together quite an impressive web site promoting this measure: RescueMarriage.Org. If you haven’t figured out yet where this is headed, the “About” page on Mr. Marcotte’s site gives the game away:
RescueMarriage.org is the brain-child of concerned Christian and political activist John Marcotte, who felt strongly that Prop 8 did not go far enough in protecting traditional marriage. With the help of attorney’s and friends, Marcotte is attempting to ban divorce in the State of California.
Yes, apparently Marcotte is among the (now bitter) minority of California voters who opposed Prop 8 last year, which re-established the traditional definition of marriage in California. And so this new ballot measure is apparently an attempt on his part to call out Christians who oppose gay marriage for their hypocrisy in not seeking to ban legal divorce. Or something to this effect.
And indeed, Marcotte appears to have confirmed his “joke” in an email response to the Political Blotter blog which questioned him on this earlier this evening:
Boy. It really hurts my feelings when people doubt my sincerity like that. I just think that sometimes other people have to sacrifice in order to protect my ideas about traditional marriage. I like to think I am just extending the good work of Prop 8 and taking it to its logical conclusions. Prop 8 wasn’t about taking away rights from gay people, it was about ‘protecting traditional marriage.’ That’s why I know that we’ll get all those Prop 8 supporters to back my initiative, even though this time it will be their rights that get diminished. To not support me would be hypocritical.
Marcotte is certainly entitled to his opinion and to promote this measure via his web site and however else he chooses to do so. I only hope that no additional state funds are expended on what can only be described as a cynical and frivolous measure.
Update: I’m probably going to regret giving them this PR in the morning – but some people may find this funny. A mock PSA from their site:
Nope, still don’t feel bad about the victory on Prop 8 last year.
Category: Absurd & Outrageous |
Thanks for giving me my laugh of the day. I actually see the humor/hypocricy in this & am curious to see the Prop 8 proponents’ response. Now that the biggest threat to marriage (which is same sex marriage, according to our Yes on 8 neighbors)is defeated, the next threat is DIVORCE.
But I admit I’m a little jaded. You see, I’m one of those people who would’ve been affected by Prop 8 if we didn’t get married. It’s no skin off my back if you don’t feel bad about the “victory” of Prop 8 because both sides won AND lost:
No MORE same sex marriages will be performed in CA, but those same sex marriages performed during the 142 days they were legal are still legit, valid, & honored in the state of CA.. My wife & I will keep on keeping on as before & celebrate our 1st anniversary on the 1st.
October 24, 2009 @ 5:37 amIt will be very interesting to see how the MSM portrays this if he gets the necessary signatures. My bet is the articles and headlines will carry the implication of this being the “religious right”. The only other possibility would be for them to ignore it in the hopes it doesn’t expose the pettiness and dishonesty of the author of the initiative.
October 24, 2009 @ 6:48 amLynette, I understand the joke of course. Personally, I think opponents of gay marriage have mis-framed the issue in labeling their cause a “defense” of traditional marriage. Traditional marriage does not need a sanction from the state in order to stand as…well, the traditional definition of marriage. No amount of counter-indoctrination is going to change this. Ever. (If nothing else, it’s a biological imperative.)
Let’s be honest. I think a majority of people are opposed to gay marriage because they see it is an infringement on the traditions and practices of their religion. Or religious institutions in general. And I think legitimately so. They don’t want the state to defend marriage. What they want is for the state to respect their religious beliefs.
Personally I think the only acceptable solution in the long run is for the the state to withdraw from the “marriage” business completely, and sanction only legally defined, civil unions between consenting adults. The second best solution is the status quo.
October 24, 2009 @ 8:12 amMorgen, I cannot speak for the majority of people who oppose “gay marriage” however here is my objections:
1. first, there is no law in existence, as far as I know that they cannot get married. That being the case, then why is there not a mass effort by gays to get married in the church of their choice. It would not be recognized by the state, but if they were really interested in monogamy then they would en masse make the commitment in my view. This is not the case as the fact is most gays are not interested in monogamy. If they were they would marry with or without state approval.
2. Another objection is the question of adoption rights. I do not believe the child should be raised in a gay household. I do not see how this would help in a balanced upbringing. But this is part of the reasoning of the activists to make sure they have “equal rights” to adoption as a married man and woman.
3. I also object to a tax deduction based on their marriage.
4. Once it is recognized by the state then our children and grandchildren have to listen to nonsense from the government school system about how this is just as normal as heterosexual relations, like having a real mother and father, etc.
One could go on about it but the reality is what the activists really want is state protection and acceptance across the board for abnormal behavior. No matter how you cut it, the no. of people who desire a long term relationship with a member of their own sex is miniscule. The larger number within that population are promiscuous in the extreme. At the end of the day Prop 8 is not just about a “defense of marriage” it is also about recognizing the special relationship between the two sexes. Therefore, it carries both a religious and secular or biological imperative.
October 24, 2009 @ 1:08 pmRalph, I am in general agreement with your points. In line with your point #2, I also believe a compelling argument can be made that society as a whole is better off when children are raised in a traditional nuclear family. With both male and female role models. And so I think social policy which provides incentives to induce/reward this behavior is not only appropriate, but preferred.
And the involvement of many religious institutions in adoption is another reason to be concerned about the state sanctioning non-traditional marriage. It would only be a very small leap from this to a state mandate that churches could not discriminate against same-sex couples in adoption placements.
I still think a more limited state role in sanctioning only civil unions could be compatible with these concerns. By allowing a legal framework which allows for same sex unions, but importantly, does not promote any sort of agenda or bias either in favor or against such unions.
Where the rubber hits the road is with the education system, and this is where the most important front of this battle is being fought (and lost).
And I would be the first to admit that my somewhat moderate views on this are really a moot point, because as you point out the activists on the other side of the debate will not stop until homosexuality is fully accepted, supported, and promoted by the state in every way imaginable.
October 24, 2009 @ 1:50 pmMorgen, you are correct in your observation regarding the adoption scenario. In Mass. the Catholic church had to abandon adoption because they were not allowed to discriminate against homosexuals. Can you believe it, they actually had the temerity to believe the only people who could be adoptive parents were a married man and woman.
October 24, 2009 @ 2:25 pm[...] and John at Verum Serum have the backstory details on this, so be sure to read it all there, but let me boil it down for [...]
October 24, 2009 @ 3:42 pmBTW, this shows how … ignorant Prop. 8 opponents are. Even the Bible allows divorce for limited, justified cause (I am sure no-fault divorce doesn’t fall under Biblically allowed divorce). On the other hand, I would be hard pressed to find a passage in Bible in support for gay marriage.
There is no inconsistency in Christians not wanting to call gay union “marriage” and wanting to allow divorce for a limited set of justifiable reasons.
P.S. On the other hand, Jesus did say God allowed divorce because of wickedness of men, so perhaps the day when we can actually ban divorce would be a good day.
October 24, 2009 @ 7:06 pmDon’t you just love children and their tantrums?
I’ll have to keep an eye on this one, just for the comedy value.
October 24, 2009 @ 10:06 pm[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Verum Serum, John Lostflame. John Lostflame said: Proposed Ballot Measure Would Ban Divorce in California? | Verum Serum http://bit.ly/1rcNFK [...]
October 24, 2009 @ 10:28 pmTrue. Don’t forget the conservative Christian position on justifiable abortions too- somethging little mentioned by the “opposition.”
October 24, 2009 @ 11:05 pmI find the “ban divorce” line of reasoning to be disingenuous.
Although Christians do divorce at times, the group that harms marriage through divorce the most is, by far, is a group that strongly supports gay marriage: Hollywood/entertainment celebrities.
Beyond that, the liberal socio-political ideology that is pushing same-sex marriage also significantly harmed traditional marriage by encouraging premarital sex and “free” love, pushing “no-fault” divorce, and abortion-on-demand (so that infidelity can be more easily covered up).
For pro-same-sex marriage activists to point to heterosexual divorce as hypocrisy is revisionist history at best. It’s almost as if someone murdered their parents, asked for mercy for being an orphan, and called anyone who disagreed a hypocrite for not recognizing the over-arching importance of family relationships.
October 25, 2009 @ 3:08 amNothing funny about that video. It is a deliberate mockery of religion and insult to those who voted for Prop 8.
I used to be indifferent to “Gay Marriage”. Things like this and the attacks on churches after Prop 8 have turned me into a contributing opponent. Nothing like having someone throw dog turds into your living room and then demand you treat them with respect. What are these people thinking? Obviously they have fallen for their own propaganda, i.e. that everyone opposed to them is too stupid to react to their infantile tantrums.
October 25, 2009 @ 3:11 ami hope it passes. teach this jackass a lesson. besides i dont live in california, doesnt impact me. i was married in the philippines, where divorce is illegal already. besides, tell me the gay community would support something like this. of course maybe the originator of the initiative is hoping for some payback votes from the gay community.
October 25, 2009 @ 7:10 amI voted against Prop 8.
Some of the antics performed by Prop 8 opponents almost make me regret that decision.
October 26, 2009 @ 12:44 pmI suppose the solution to this problem would be to not get married to begin with. Just have an attorney get your affairs in order as a heterosexual couple, or a homosexual couple.
But then, a wing-nut such as Mr. Marcotte will no doubt try to get a ban on couples living together. Well, good luck, and try living in the 21st century for a change.
Just my two bucks worth (inflation you know).
Darren
November 14, 2009 @ 10:48 pmI should mention that a ban on couples living together could be extremely difficult given that there are many people in college who live off campus as room mates, or could just be room mates to begin with. Such a proposition would violate numerous fair housing laws in place. To freakin bad.
November 14, 2009 @ 10:57 pmi am sure others have said it not all marriages are made in heaven and not all divorces are senstational /frivalous and silly. sadly when many woman and often some men do so when they have reached the end of thier rope in relationship- drug use and abuse. abandonment. by banning divorce families in these situations would be literally sentenced to misery just so some poeple can feel that they have saved marriage from “gays”.
December 1, 2009 @ 7:46 pm