It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

California to ban divorce

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   

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.

Stroy Here

I can tell you first wife would just hate this new law... she's been married four times now and is always on the look out for the next Mister Sucker...

So what to think well till death do us part really fly in this day and age???
back in the days when till death do us part the church still had annulments but this would be the frist real law that states "Your stuck with her buddy"!

[edit on 1-12-2009 by DaddyBare]




posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
The odds of that law passing a statewide referendum is virtually zero in any state in the country, let alone California. At the very least, all of the Hollywierd types will come out in full force to oppose it. If it passes, they won't be able to trade up for a newer model every few years. Can't have that.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


I agree. This bill is never going to pass.
It's not worth wasting time worrying about it.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by DaddyBare
 


Even though I highly doubt it will ever make it onto the ballot in the first place, the end result of such a legislative measure may very well see a slight drop in divorce rates .... followed by a significant rise in "death by spouse".


"WELL!? ... he/she Did say 'till death do us part'!"


What a crazy world we live in. :shk:



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   
I think I know why......

..we getting tried of golddigger...



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   
I could envision the concept of marriage contracts that have initial time limits (i.e. marriage automatically dissolves after X number of years unless re-newed...) before I could envision a (legal not religious) ban on divorce.

Good way to make a point though!








[edit on 1-12-2009 by LadySkadi]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Government needs to stay OUT of people's relationships and whether or not they choose to marry, divorce, mary same sex, etc.



And there is no way this will divorce. It would mean most of Hollywood having to move out of state!



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Not the tact I would have taken.

Who want's to come out in favor of Divorce? Or supportive of Divorce?

I would have gone for the complete banning of all marriage, like they accidentally did down in Texas.
Texas' gay marriage ban may have banned all marriages

I don't know, I would imagine all the California Divorce lawyers, who make a pretty penny on either side, because California Law divides the assets equally, they might try some legal wrangling that it would be a violation of someones rights not to allow them the freedom of Divorce.

I would love to watch a debate on this...
DocMoreau



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by 12m8keall2c
 


You do know a law like this could also lead to measures against Booze and quickie Vegas wedding chapels too...

Kidding aside I've yet to see anyone say "Why Not"? I mean when I took my vows I was so sure, till death do us part, was longer than waiting for my next deployment so she could slip out... What punishments would this incur? being chained to the living room with no remote?



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   
You guys do get that it's a commentary or as it states: "The effort is meant to be a satirical statement."

They aren't trying to get it passed, they are making a point, and a good one. Why pick and choose? Gays can't get married there because it violates the sanctity, so does divorce, get it??

Meh.. I don't really care one way or another though, I'm not gay and don't think our idea of marriage is based on anything worth a damn (if you're wondering what I'm talking about, you should look up some of the finer points in the bible on what women are and aren't allowed to do... some real BS!).



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Why does this gay marriage thing always create one stupid bill after another?

Here's an idea: a bill that would seperate government and marriage entirely. Of course we can't have that. That would solve all the problems and make too much sense. This whole thing is so ridiculous and might be funny if it weren't so offensive and wasteful. And to see the reaction/action of the morons on either of the two manufactured 'sides' of this circus doesn't help my opinion based on experience that people are largely raging morons unfit to breathe my air.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
You guys are missing the point. They know it wont pass but its a brilliant statement being made about traditional marriage vs gay marriage.

I think this guy is a genius for taking this angle in the fight and shows just how hypocritical society is when it comes to gay marriages. This will probably get some news coverage and help bring to light the issues he wanted to be brought up. It will serve exactly the purpose planned for it.

I kind of wish they would make it impossible to get a divorce, I don't think people would get married so quickly.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by DaddyBare
 


Personally, I think that this a step in the right direction for gay marriage advocates. They need to start using a little ideological judo in the face of idiotic measures meant to restrict the freedoms of the gay population.

The actual logical step would be to remove "marriage" from ALL government language. The mere fact that a legislative argument could center around the "sanctity" or sacredness of anything is absurd and a violation of the separation of church and state.

Marriage is a sacrement of almost all churches. When the government says who can and can not marry, then they are dictating who can and cannot receive a religious sacrament. It's the equivalent of telling the Jewish faith that they most move Bar/Bat Mitvahs to age 18, since THAT is the legal age of adulthood. Or charging Catholics with cannibalism over that who devouring the flesh of Christ thing.

It is not the job of government to protect the sanctity of anything. Remove the concept of "Marriage" from legal affairs. You can be Married in the eyes of your church, but in the eyes of the government there should only be the civil union: the merging of two individuals into a socio-economic unit known as a household or couple. Once you remove this superstitious nonsense about sanctity from the argument, there is no reason to deny anyone their rights. After all, homosexuals can incorporate businesses and enter into legal contracts.

That should be all the government should be concerned with.

And any so-called "Republican" who believes in "Smaller Government" who believes otherwise is a hypocrite and charlatan.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   
If you can't buy a big screen plasma TV, and divorce a nagging wife, what's the point in living there?




posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Agreed. The easiest means of solving this problem is to eliminate the recognition of marriage by the government. That would send the debate back into the private institutions that actually perform marriages, which is where it belongs.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by ganja
 


yeah we all know it was meant to be tongue in cheek... however we both know how things like this take on lives of their own... All we need now is the Televangelist Reverend, Send Me Money, to jump on the bandwagon and create a real movement..



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by DaddyBare
 


Ha! I hadn't considered that. Touche, sir! I guess I am definitely not gonna get married now...lol.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
California seems like the last place that would ever ban divorce. It's like Colorado banning snow or something.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
I motion we start a betting pool on ATS for this thread. California is #19 in the country for divorce rates, I don't see this happening.

. : SOURCE : .



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Another terrible proposal puppeteered by the nefarious CAT or California Anti Trophy-wife lobby!

Down with CAT!!!



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join