PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Uphold the Sanctity of Marriage


Pitt Gorilla
12-02-2009, 10:07 PM
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ityjaAAMYI7StNV2uur-vrfyGuFgD9CA3KB80

Movement under way in California to ban divorce

By JUDY LIN (AP) 2 days 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.

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 11,000. 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."

Other petition signers said they were motivated by a sincere interest to preserve marriages. One was Ervin Hulton, a 47-year-old dishwasher who said he believes in making it harder for couples to separate.

"The way I feel, why go out and spend all these tons of money for marriage, the photography and all that? And along down the line, it's going to shatter," said Hulton, who is single.

The U.S. divorce rate is 47.9 percent, according to data provided by the National Center for Health Statistics reports. That figure, however, does not include California, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana and Minnesota because those six states no longer report their divorce rates to the center.
California stopped because of budget problems, said Ralph Montano, a spokesman for the California Department of Public Health.

While most people would not support banning divorce, it does make sense for couples to be educated about the financial and emotional commitments of marriage, said Dan Couvrette, chief executive and publisher of Toronto-based Divorce Magazine. The publication has a circulation of 140,000, including a regional edition in Southern California.

"It's a worthwhile conversation to have," said Couvrette, who started the magazine in 1996 after going through his own divorce. "I don't think it's just a frivolous thought."

On the Net:
2010 California Marriage Protection Act: http://www.rescuemarriage.org

Taco John
12-02-2009, 10:08 PM
That's pretty funny.

Guru
12-02-2009, 11:27 PM
Lawyers will be up in arms over this.

Norman Einstein
12-03-2009, 04:33 AM
Lawyers will be up in arms over this.

No kidding, one of their bigget meal tickets of all time. What does it cost to hire a lawyer when you get a divorce? The sky is the limit depending on how wealthy your are. My wife would have to spend $2.98, but there are some that would take a beating, consider the possible costs for Tiger Woods in just lawyer fees.

Mr. Kotter
12-03-2009, 11:07 AM
ROFLROFLROFL

Jilly
12-03-2009, 11:09 AM
interesting idea, really.

Iowanian
12-03-2009, 11:26 AM
I think they should just lop off your wedding ring finger at the bottom knuckle with a divorce. After 2 or 3, you'll be thinking about that decision a little harder.

ClevelandBronco
12-03-2009, 11:37 AM
Saw this on the front page of the NY Times this morning, but a quick Google pulled up this version:

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/12/02/new-york-state-senate-rejects-gay-marriage-focus-turns-to-nj/

New York state Senate rejects gay marriage, focus turns to N.J.

The 38-to-24 vote in the New York state Senate is a fresh and stinging defeat for gay marriage, which was also recently rejected in Maine. Now, the New Jersey legislature might take up this issue.

After a heated and often emotional debate about same-sex marriage in the New York state Senate, lawmakers rejected a bill that would have made that state the sixth to legalize gay marriage.

While New York Gov. David Paterson backed the bill – and the state Assembly already passed it – Democratic supporters needed some Republican aid to pass the marriage law. No GOP lawmakers voted for the bill, which failed in a 38 to 24 vote.

ClevelandBronco
12-03-2009, 11:38 AM
No kidding, one of their bigget meal tickets of all time. What does it cost to hire a lawyer when you get a divorce? The sky is the limit depending on how wealthy your are. My wife would have to spend $2.98, but there are some that would take a beating, consider the possible costs for Tiger Woods in just lawyer fees.

When you have Tiger money to protect, a lawyer doesn't cost you money, he saves you money.

Pitt Gorilla
12-03-2009, 12:25 PM
I think it is an interesting idea from a discussion viewpoint. Far too many marriages end in divorce. At this rate, I'm not sure what "sanctity" is actually left.

Mr. Kotter
12-03-2009, 07:58 PM
I think it is an interesting idea from a discussion viewpoint. Far too many marriages end in divorce. At this rate, I'm not sure what "sanctity" is actually left.

I most of us agree that divorce diminishes the sanctity of marriage. And many, even most, would probably agree with reasonable attempts to mitigate modern divorce trends.

Meanwhile, there does appear to be a significant minority of folks that think that radical redefining of marriage in the way some would have it....would, somehow, not impact the sanctity of marriage. And unlike folks who acknowledge that we ought to reverse the trend, this same significant minority would have us embrace policies to further diminish the sanctity of marriage.

Go figure....

Saul Good
12-03-2009, 08:41 PM
Saw this on the front page of the NY Times this morning, but a quick Google pulled up this version:

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/12/02/new-york-state-senate-rejects-gay-marriage-focus-turns-to-nj/

New York state Senate rejects gay marriage, focus turns to N.J.

The 38-to-24 vote in the New York state Senate is a fresh and stinging defeat for gay marriage, which was also recently rejected in Maine. Now, the New Jersey legislature might take up this issue.

After a heated and often emotional debate about same-sex marriage in the New York state Senate, lawmakers rejected a bill that would have made that state the sixth to legalize gay marriage.

While New York Gov. David Paterson backed the bill and the state Assembly already passed it Democratic supporters needed some Republican aid to pass the marriage law. No GOP lawmakers voted for the bill, which failed in a 38 to 24 vote.

This is the type of issue that should be put to a referendum rather than being decided by a couple of lawmakers.

BucEyedPea
12-03-2009, 10:57 PM
I think it is an interesting idea from a discussion viewpoint. Far too many marriages end in divorce. At this rate, I'm not sure what "sanctity" is actually left.

Make it harder for everyone to get married.

JohnnyV13
12-03-2009, 10:59 PM
Make it harder for everyone to get married.

Don't be such a statist. Who is the government to tell you if you can get married or not?

ClevelandBronco
12-03-2009, 11:01 PM
Make it harder for everyone to get married.

Who should make it more difficult? The government?

EDIT: Forget it. Johnny on the spot.

Mr. Kotter
12-03-2009, 11:01 PM
Make it harder for everyone to get married.

If you mean, men and women, most of us would agree. :toast:

Amnorix
12-04-2009, 07:18 AM
I think it is an interesting idea from a discussion viewpoint. Far too many marriages end in divorce. At this rate, I'm not sure what "sanctity" is actually left.

People will do what people will do. Hopefully they take their marriage vows seriously, as most do, but forcing people who are not happy to remain married -- by the simple and absurd expedient of prohibiting divorce -- is just silly.

BucEyedPea
12-04-2009, 08:43 AM
Don't be such a statist. Who is the government to tell you if you can get married or not?

I didn't say the Federal govt should have anything to do with this. I didn't even say the States would have to do anything with this.
Although under our Constitution the State's have every right, authority and power to make laws and regs on marriage.
Then again Churches, JPs or families could do something too.

I did say I was a Constitutionalist didn't I? Yup!
I did say I was a conservative didn't I? Yup!
I did say I was NOT a libertarian? Yup!
I never said I believed in NO govt, just LESS govt? Yup!
I'm a small govt conservative who thinks the Fed govt has too much power.

Lump sum total I'm still for a lot less govt than you are who believeth in a manipulated money supply/economy which is impoverishing us all, including our own govt.

Anyhow, I wasn't being all that serious but we could at least ditch No Fault Divorce etc. or put things in place to make people think about who they up and marry. It may just be that we in society start to enforce ethics on each other.

BucEyedPea
12-04-2009, 08:45 AM
If you mean, men and women, most of us would agree. :toast:

Actually I was thinkin' about hermaphrodites!

Waits for JohnnyV to take me oh sooooo seriously again!

ClevelandBronco
12-04-2009, 09:24 AM
I didn't say the Federal govt should have anything to do with this. I didn't even say the States would have to do anything with this.
Although under our Constitution the State's have every right, authority and power to make laws and regs on marriage.
Then again Churches, JPs or families could do something too.

I did say I was a Constitutionalist didn't I? Yup!
I did say I was a conservative didn't I? Yup!
I did say I was NOT a libertarian? Yup!
I never said I believed in NO govt, just LESS govt? Yup!
I'm a small govt conservative who thinks the Fed govt has too much power.

Lump sum total I'm still for a lot less govt than you are who believeth in a manipulated money supply/economy which is impoverishing us all, including our own govt.

Anyhow, I wasn't being all that serious but we could at least ditch No Fault Divorce etc. or put things in place to make people think about who they up and marry. It may just be that we in society start to enforce ethics on each other.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qLv6UKAuPsg&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qLv6UKAuPsg&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

HolyHandgernade
12-04-2009, 09:26 AM
Governments should just get out of the marriage business and only issue civil unions strictly for legal purposes. Give marriage to social/cultural groups and let them put whatever restrictions/expectations they want on it (as long as it doesn't conflict with the law, of course.)

BucEyedPea
12-04-2009, 09:29 AM
There's a difference between asserting Constitutionality and then determining what the best policy is. They're sometimes at odds, other times they're not.

Calcountry
12-04-2009, 11:10 AM
Don't be such a statist. Who is the government to tell you if you can get married or not?:clap::clap:

FishingRod
12-04-2009, 12:19 PM
Governments should just get out of the marriage business and only issue civil unions strictly for legal purposes. Give marriage to social/cultural groups and let them put whatever restrictions/expectations they want on it (as long as it doesn't conflict with the law, of course.)

I have said much the same thing on several occasions. I think people get a little too hung up on who is boinking who. From a Government standpoint I think they should allow any two consenting adults to enter into a legal partnership that would give each other all the rights and obligations that are now provided by a marriage. What difference does is it make if that partner is a man, woman, someone you are sleeping with or not? Why would it be wrong to enter into a partnership with your best friend, brother or sister? Most of this can be accomplished now short of the tax benefits and social security benefits currently reserved for Spouses. Leave the " Marriage" ceremonies to the religious institutions and let them make what ever rules they deem fit to be considered married by that church. synagogue temple or tree house and keep the government's nose out of it. The reverse of the situation already exists when Catholic couple gets divorced in the eyes of the State yet remaining married in the eyes of the church.

ClevelandBronco
12-04-2009, 12:30 PM
I have said much the same thing on several occasions. I think people get a little too hung up on who is boinking who. From a Government standpoint I think they should allow any two consenting adults to enter into a legal partnership that would give each other all the rights and obligations that are now provided by a marriage. What difference does is it make if that partner is a man, woman, someone you are sleeping with or not? Why would it be wrong to enter into a partnership with your best friend, brother or sister? Most of this can be accomplished now short of the tax benefits and social security benefits currently reserved for Spouses. Leave the " Marriage" ceremonies to the religious institutions and let them make what ever rules they deem fit to be considered married by that church. synagogue temple or tree house and keep the government's nose out of it. The reverse of the situation already exists when Catholic couple gets divorced in the eyes of the State yet remaining married in the eyes of the church.

I agree for the most part.

Now how would you handle the questions that would undoubtedly arise from the bolded part of your post?

Also: Would you allow plural marriage (contracts, whatever we're calling it) and how would that allowance — or prohibition — affect other government benefits (SS survivor benefits) and private obligations (from employer provided health insurance plans, etc.)?

fan4ever
12-04-2009, 12:33 PM
I figured most of California was taking Hollywood's lead anyway...just crank out the kids and don't bother with marriage.

Only difference is Hollywood can afford this mind set . . .

Thig Lyfe
12-04-2009, 12:37 PM
I'm honestly amazed that it's 2009 and we still have debates over whether two adults who love each other should be able to fully benefit from all the rights and privileges entitled by law to a married couple.

The subtext of the whole "sanctity" thing is really "It's icky and different and we don't understand it." And it's sad that that passes for a legitimate argument these days.

FishingRod
12-04-2009, 01:26 PM
I agree for the most part.

Now how would you handle the questions that would undoubtedly arise from the bolded part of your post?

Also: Would you allow plural marriage (contracts, whatever we're calling it) and how would that allowance or prohibition affect other government benefits (SS survivor benefits) and private obligations (from employer provided health insurance plans, etc.)?

As far as Social Security benefits Those could be handled in much the same manner as they are now for married people. At this point a person can only be married to one person at a time but, multiple ex spouses can receive pro rated Social security benefits. It would be a bit more complicated to allow simultaneous partners but I suppose they could just divide up the benefits equally if the partners had the same time invested or by a percentage if the times were not even. That is of course assuming that the partners would receive more benefit from who ever died retired etc., they they would on their own.

With Regards to insurance benefits, Presently in most group health insurance policies the participation and cost fall into Employee, Employee and Spouse and Employee spouse and dependants. In the plans I have been in, the cost changes from Employee to Employee and spouse and then again when children are included. They do not as far as I have seen, make any distinction between a family with 2 children and one with 10 even though logic dictates the 10 child family will have quite a bit more expense. I have no doubt the Insurance companies can figure out any number of ways to charge more to cover anything they need.

Inspector
12-04-2009, 01:32 PM
I do not believe anyone is banned from getting married if they are old enough. That's just crazy talk.

FishingRod
12-04-2009, 02:17 PM
Truth be told, two dudes kissing each other creeps most people out. It is easier to cloak our disdain for that in protecting the sanctity of marriage than it is to admit our prejudice and do the right thing in spite of it. Separating the Government from the religious ceremony makes perfect sense on a great many levels but I'm not really looking to produce a political novel today. I was married on Miami Beach by a little old Lady who I assume was Jewish. Some people would not consider that a proper ceremony but, the commitment I feel to my wife and my marriage would be no more valid in my mind had we been married in the Vatican by the Pope Himself. On the other hand I chose not to get married in Mexico because they called it a "commemorative" wedding certificate. I was looking for something a little more official than that should I be laying in a comma and need someone to pull the plug on my fat ass.

BucEyedPea
12-04-2009, 03:34 PM
:clap::clap:

Both you and him need to rent a sense of humor. ROFL I've posted before govt being out of marriage as s/g I could also support.

HolyHandgernade
12-05-2009, 06:01 AM
I agree for the most part.

Now how would you handle the questions that would undoubtedly arise from the bolded part of your post?

Also: Would you allow plural marriage (contracts, whatever we're calling it) and how would that allowance or prohibition affect other government benefits (SS survivor benefits) and private obligations (from employer provided health insurance plans, etc.)?

A civil union would just be a personal contract that could be as detailed or as general as one likes. You could institute that a legal adult could have no more than one civil union with another at any one time, contracts with minors are not enforceable anyway. The government would have a standard form and people could get more detailed if they deemed it necessary. Also, you wouldn't be forced to get a civil union just because you got married, you just wouldn't be able to claim the legal/tax benefits. So, Mormons who want polygamy can do so, but the male can only claim one civil union at a time.

-HH

JohnnyV13
12-05-2009, 03:43 PM
Both you and him need to rent a sense of humor. ROFL I've posted before govt being out of marriage as s/g I could also support.

Oh please, I couldn't resist the irony of using your favorite mantra against you.

I, however, actually am more of a libertarin when it comes to social issues. I think churches and what not should be happy if people are free to live by the values they choose. When religious zealots want to use state power to compel others to live according to their religious/social values, that desire is the pure definition of tyranny.

As for getting rid of no fault divorce, well...we used to have it that way, and the problems with the courts being forced to jam a black hat on one party during a divorce caused us to invent no fault divorce.

People who are simply no longer compatible, or never compatible to begin with, would be forced to alledge some kind of fault to win a divorce. If one party MUST be found at fault, then you could get in a perjury contest in order to "win".

If you want to manage "divorce", getting rid of no fault divorce isn't the most efficient method anyway; I think marriage stumbling blocks would be more effective (such as requiring passing a household finance course) or force them to talk about a gamut of attitudes to ensure compatibility. But, I think allowing government to regulate marriage eligibility opens the door to all kinds of social engineering.

There is nothing that people want more than to get laid, so regulating that behavior grants all kinds of power to someone who seizes that control. (Something religions learned long ago. Do you really think that its an ACCIDENT in catholic theology that masturbation is a sin, fornication is a sin, sex is only okay after marriage, and marriage requires you to jump through the church's hoops? Basically, using 'it' is wrong until the church gives you permission. Which, btw, doesn't happen until they've indoctrinated you in how it will all fail without prayer, the church, and regular donations).