Ban gay marriage, ban divorce?

ysabel

/ˈɪzəˌbɛl/ pink 5
#1
Movement Under Way In California To Ban Divorce - Family News Story - KTVU San Francisco

I think this is an interesting point of view and wonder whether anyone here who are for banning gay marriage also share the view that divorce should be banned. Or if you're not for the gay marriage ban, do you think that states who ban gay marriage should ban divorce too?

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 Central 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 1,100. 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."
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
#2
I don't see the connection between the two at all. Marriage is a legal contract enforceable by state law. Every contract can be broken, you can be sued over breaking it, but can be broken nontheless. Banning divorce, while catchy, makes no sense and any such consideration would be unconstitutional anyway.
 

PretzelCorps

Registered Member
#3
It's a nice gesture, but I suspect it'll end up being pointless; it doesn't matter how many holes and contradictions you poke into people's irrational rationalizations, they're always unbelievably quick to just cook up new ones.

The "sanctity of traditional marriage" isn't what people truly care about at all; it's just the convenient argument of the day. Making it that much more obvious won't have the desired effect of changing the real attitude behind it.

CO said:
I don't see the connection between the two at all. Marriage is a legal contract enforceable by state law. Every contract can be broken, you can be sued over breaking it, but can be broken nontheless. Banning divorce, while catchy, makes no sense and any such consideration would be unconstitutional anyway.
I don't think it's something they ever actually intended to have pass.

I have to admit, though, I have a bit more respect for the people that leap on and go "yeah, yeah, banning divorce is a great idea!!" :lol:
 
Last edited:

icegoat63

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
#4
Sadly it'll fall flat just like any other "statement" proposition like this.

But the funny thing is I really like the idea. I mean seriously, California has a disgustingly high divorce rate. I'd like to at least see some seriousness placed back into the concept of Marriage.

Teenagers getting married right out of High School only to get divorced a year or 2 deep in College. That kind of thing flustrates me, I recall a statistic about how only one out of three Teenage Marriages do not end up in Divorce.

But yeah, I like it though. Gives that whole feeling of "oh yeah... have your cake AND eat it then bitches!"
 

dafty807

Registered Member
#5
Divorce, like most things just happen, i dont think people get married thinking - its ok we will get divorced anyway. people who get married intend on spending the rest of their live together - but if complications arise which cause them to stop loving each other - then divorce gives them the option to start again!

so altho banning divorce may sound appealin to some people, its bascially not giving people the chance to be free, or happy.

just like banning gay marriage! if two people are in love and want to unite themselves for life because the are "that loved up" then why should it matter if they are the same sex or not??
 

Oooh_snap

Living on the 0th floor
V.I.P.
#6
I was driving to school one morning, and heard them talking about this on the radio. I absolutely support this. I think it will make people really be sure they have found their lifetime partner before just hitching up with anyone who comes along. I guess, it raises hope in me that maybe marriage can go back to the way it once was viewed.

Also requiring it to be annulled leaves the money battles and such to be settled privately or in civil cases, which supposedly is why the ban was initially brought up.
 

blackhorse

Registered Member
#7
yeah i love the idea about banning divorce..atleast it makes people think twice before goin into a commitment and atleast then they will be serious about it..right now there are such high divorce rates because those enterin a marriage KNOW they can get out of it anytime they want..so even for the tiniest problems they run and get a divorce which is really frustrating...and if there was a ban they would be forced to overcome differences and eventually learn to be happy..but i think the plan will fall on its face cos there will be rhetorical questions on free will..:(
 

PretzelCorps

Registered Member
#9
I'm not in favor of an outright ban, but I wouldn't have a problem with it being harder to do.
The only reservation I have with making harder to get a divorce is the fact that it won't change divorce or "stupid-teenager-marriage" rates; you'll just end up with a backlog of people trying to get through the harder system, and probably a whole swath of undesirable side-effects to boot.
 

Wade8813

Registered Member
#10
The only reservation I have with making harder to get a divorce is the fact that it won't change divorce or "stupid-teenager-marriage" rates; you'll just end up with a backlog of people trying to get through the harder system, and probably a whole swath of undesirable side-effects to boot.
In the short term, yes, but long term, people might be more likely to stop and think about it before getting married (depending, of course, on how it was handled).