Page 1 of 2
#1
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34209592/ns/us_news-life/?gt1=43001

discuss

eDit: for the benefit of people like this guy
Quote by Razgriz_101
college got everything blocked it sucks im very limited why you think im here. they see this site as "educational" LMAO.

and those to lazy to click the link


here:

Till 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.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

"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.

Funded by T-shirt sales
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.

'Quite hilarious'
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.

Motivated to preserve marriages
"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.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

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."


eDit2: also, people, please understand that this is satirical in nature.
Last edited by dhutton at Dec 2, 2009,
#2
If divorce was banned, accidental deaths and "suicides" would go up by atleast 500%.
████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
#3
this guy is brilliant.
Quote by denfilade
For a moment I thought velcro shoes were ones with the whole bottom made of velcro

She could walk up your pubes with those

Quote by kannon
this post has aids
Quote by NinjaSlayHuman
and 07'ers will always be well-respected members of UG society.
#4
only in America....
Quote by Johnny skins
banned cause im fine because of your avatar! it blasts happyness everytime i see it!!

definitly the best avatar ever I=Cookie


Proud owner of the: I'm wearing clothes in the Pit! Group! Click here to join
#5
his wife probably wants to leave him that's why he lobbying for this no divorce law.
Quote by aRandomSandwich
Walk in on your first day cover in butter and flop your knob out on the managers desk, this will show confidence, and your boss like that in a man, he likes that a lot, he also likes his penis in a man... work hard now y'all...

#7
Quote by tact420
his wife probably wants to leave him that's why he lobbying for this no divorce law.

his wife signed it.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#8
Quote by Lemoninfluence
his wife signed it.

And his kids...

whatever the hell you make of that
████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
#10
Its more to do with highlighting the gay marriage situation.

The guy isn't too serious about it, but in essence states that "Banning Gay marriage preserves the fundamentals of marriage - so does this."

Basically, its a satirical poke at the gay marriage ban.
"A man chooses. A slave obeys."
#13
oh wow, yet another crackpot or attention starved 'activist' making noise with no hope of making a difference againt the majority...
Guitar - The true Religion
#14
Hahaha, this guy is pretty witty! I agree with him, what's the point in banning gay marriage to "protect the sanctity of a traditional marriage" when these days people wed each other so easily and divorce just as easily? America, **** yeah!
Gear:

Guitars: Ibanez SV5470F, Ibanez Xpt700, Fender MIM Standard Stratocaster ('04-'05), Jackson Ps-2
Ashton AG200,
Amps: ENGL E530, Bugera 6262-212,
FX: TC Electronics G-major 2, Behringer EQ700, Morley Volume / Wah
#15
Quote by Kensai
If divorce was banned, accidental deaths and "suicides" would go up by atleast 500%.
I would have thrown the quotes up around "accidental".
Meadows
Quote by Jackal58
I release my inner liberal every morning when I take a shit.
Quote by SK8RDUDE411
I wont be like those jerks who dedicate their beliefs to logic and reaosn.
#16
Quote by ChucklesMginty
It may be satirical, but completely true.
And surely all the Catholics will be voting yes for it anyway? As they've always strongly opposed divorce.


http://www.adnet.ie/divorce.html

Nuh-uh

Edit: The guy in the article is a genius, btw
Quote by Zero-Hartman
Damn you, bodyheatseeker

Quote by Paramore.
bodyheatseeker, I will NEVER forgive you.

Last edited by bodyheatseeker at Dec 1, 2009,
#17
I agree with what he is saying, there shouldn't be divorce because marriage is supposed to be forever. When you marrry someone, thats it, you're done. So I appluad the guy for actually wanting to take the institution of marriage seriously, more people should think that way. But divorce can't be ban because there are still tons of stupid people in this country who get married too young, or for the wrong reasons, or who don't know the difference between love and infatuation. They dont need to ban divorce, they just need to ban stupid people from getting married in the first place and there wont be a need for divorce. But I'm with this guy, marriage is a gonna be a one time thing for me.
#18
just a heads up guys, read the article before posting
Geets:
Ibanez GSA60
Epiphone SG/LP custom
Schecter Damien elite 7
Fender Highway one Telecaster

Pedals:
Visual sound Jekyll and Hyde


Amp:
Peavey 6505
Marshall M412a cab
Peavey Classic 50

GO STEELERS!
#19
Quote by ak10
But divorce can't be ban because there are still tons of stupid people in this country who get married too young, or for the wrong reasons, or who don't know the difference between love and infatuation.


That attitude is naive and insulting.
It's perfectly reasonable that some people, for whatever reason, fall out of love.
Quote by Zero-Hartman
Damn you, bodyheatseeker

Quote by Paramore.
bodyheatseeker, I will NEVER forgive you.

#20
Quote by ak10
I agree with what he is saying, there shouldn't be divorce because marriage is supposed to be forever. When you marrry someone, thats it, you're done. So I appluad the guy for actually wanting to take the institution of marriage seriously, more people should think that way. But divorce can't be ban because there are still tons of stupid people in this country who get married too young, or for the wrong reasons, or who don't know the difference between love and infatuation. They dont need to ban divorce, they just need to ban stupid people from getting married in the first place and there wont be a need for divorce. But I'm with this guy, marriage is a gonna be a one time thing for me.

That's not what he's saying at all, he's making a satirical statement about the banning of gay marriage.

But just out of interest, let me throw a scenario your way.
Let us say that after you get married, you find out things about your partner that you didn't previously know, say for instance they're an axe wielding maniac who has left a trail of bloody corpses before they met you?

How would you feel about divorce then?
Would you seek a divorce under such circumstances?
Or would you try and 'make a go' of the marriage?
#21
~ "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."
#23
Even in all seriousness, I see no reason why people would not support the abolishment of divorces and at the same time no gay marriage.

Oh, right, the whole homophobic hypocritical i-follow-an-ideal-as-long-as-it-suits-me thing.

Quote by SlackerBabbath
That's not what he's saying at all, he's making a satirical statement about the banning of gay marriage.

But just out of interest, let me throw a scenario your way.
Let us say that after you get married, you find out things about your partner that you didn't previously know, say for instance they're an axe wielding maniac who has left a trail of bloody corpses before they met you?

How would you feel about divorce then?
Would you seek a divorce under such circumstances?
Or would you try and 'make a go' of the marriage?

Depends on the partner.

Perhaps i'll just follow your example and not get married and just be partners.
Quote by Vornik
Thanks for the advice. I'm going to put it, along with your other advice, into a book, the pages of which I will then use to wipe my ass.
Last edited by dann_blood at Dec 1, 2009,
#24
Quote by bodyheatseeker
That attitude is naive and insulting.
It's perfectly reasonable that some people, for whatever reason, fall out of love.

I think that's kinda what he was tryin' to say...
STRIKING MINORS
#25
Quote by SlackerBabbath
That's not what he's saying at all, he's making a satirical statement about the banning of gay marriage.

But just out of interest, let me throw a scenario your way.
Let us say that after you get married, you find out things about your partner that you didn't previously know, say for instance they're an axe wielding maniac who has left a trail of bloody corpses before they met you?

How would you feel about divorce then?
Would you seek a divorce under such circumstances?
Or would you try and 'make a go' of the marriage?

Annulment would remain legal.

Obviously banning divorce isn't his intention, but seeing the percentage of marriages that end in divorce makes me think they need some laws to try prevent this. The rate of divorce is tarnishing the sanctity of marriage more than gay marriage ever could.
#26
Quote by Regression
Annulment would remain legal.

But in a country where divorce is illegal but annulment is still legal, wouldn't annulment naturaly develop and become something more akin to the 'new divorce'?
#27
Quote by SlackerBabbath
But in a country where divorce is illegal but annulment is still legal, wouldn't annulment naturaly develop and become something more akin to the 'new divorce'?

If it were that easy to get an annulment then the US wouldn't have such a high divorce rate. An annulment is much more appealing than a divorce. (unless you intend to gain half of your partners fortune I suppose)

I'm not a lawyer or anything, so I can't discuss the procedures one has to go through to get an annulment. I don't think it's as simple as just signing a few papers though. People fabricating their circumstances would probably be expected, but I imagine they'd need a reasonable amount of evidence to show that their reasons are genuine.
#29
Quote by muckypup
This stupid dickhead, why put a ban on people having a divorce? If this f*cking stupid idea does get used, I bet the murder rates go up!

Read the article before you proceed to call him stupid.
#30
This guy is so awesome I want to propose to him.
Quote by ozzyismetal
Neopowell, that's because you are a pumped-up sex offender.
Quote by Kensai
You're exactly the kind of person who'd have sex in a bar drunk
Quote by Zero-Hartman
You're a terrible, terrible man. This is a new middle for you.

I write things. You can read them.Essay on UK student riots
#32
Quote by Kensai
If divorce was banned, accidental deaths and "suicides" would go up by atleast 500%.


You should be president.
wen i ask they say that they fall into the habit smhw ........but nyways i think there is a connection smwhere. Now i being a teetollar will not give into this habit nyhw

FOR JUST £2 A WEEK, YOU CAN PREVENT THIS.
#33
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
I would have thrown the quotes up around "accidental".

It's mostly for liability purposes.

>.>

Quote by el-ECTRO
You should be president.

I get that alot.
████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
#34
I made this exact point in a discussion about gay marriage not two days ago. My, my, isn't life funny?
No animals were harmed in order to bring you the above post. However, several photons were greatly inconvenienced.

ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNO-TOAD
#36
Quote by Regression
If it were that easy to get an annulment then the US wouldn't have such a high divorce rate. An annulment is much more appealing than a divorce. (unless you intend to gain half of your partners fortune I suppose)

I'm not a lawyer or anything, so I can't discuss the procedures one has to go through to get an annulment. I don't think it's as simple as just signing a few papers though. People fabricating their circumstances would probably be expected, but I imagine they'd need a reasonable amount of evidence to show that their reasons are genuine.

Well I know that in the Roman Catholic Church, a marriage is considered to be a valid contract entered into between a man and a woman, and ratified by Divine sanction. If any of the conditions lack, then the marriage is not contracted, Divine sanction is not obtained, and there is in actual (and religious) fact no marriage. An annulment is a finding later that there was no actual marriage contracted in God's eyes, and therefore no marriage in reality (from the religious point of view), regardless of civil ordinance or appearance to humans.
Divorce is seriously frowned upon in the Catholic Church, so Catholics have far many more annulments than other groups. And an annulment can be made for anything that goes against the marriage 'contract' including the wedding vows taken from the Book of Common Prayer, which say "To have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part."
So, logicaly, if a couple no longer love each other, and say they've never really loved each other, that is a 'condition that is lacking' so there was no actual marriage contracted in God's eyes and an annulment can be made.

At the moment, yes, a divorce is probably easier to get than an annulment, (or maybe it's just the case that people think they are and naturaly, or traditionaly, seek a divorce rather than an annulment, plus as you say, divorces can certainly be more profitable for some) but if we banned divorces, that would leave only annulments and you can guarrantee that lawyers would be finding all sorts of loopholes in marriage contracts that allow for annulments and the percentage of annulments being carried out would rapidly grow.
#37
article is funny, too bad america's too stupid to get the point.
RIFT.CANYON.DREAMS.


Quote by Oroborous
I'm trying to cover one of my bedroom walls in semen. I'm about half way done.

Pics coming soon
#38
Quote by SlackerBabbath
Well I know that in the Roman Catholic Church, a marriage is considered to be a valid contract entered into between a man and a woman, and ratified by Divine sanction. If any of the conditions lack, then the marriage is not contracted, Divine sanction is not obtained, and there is in actual (and religious) fact no marriage. An annulment is a finding later that there was no actual marriage contracted in God's eyes, and therefore no marriage in reality (from the religious point of view), regardless of civil ordinance or appearance to humans.
Divorce is seriously frowned upon in the Catholic Church, so Catholics have far many more annulments than other groups. And an annulment can be made for anything that goes against the marriage 'contract' including the wedding vows taken from the Book of Common Prayer, which say "To have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part."
So, logicaly, if a couple no longer love each other, and say they've never really loved each other, that is a 'condition that is lacking' so there was no actual marriage contracted in God's eyes and an annulment can be made.

At the moment, yes, a divorce is probably easier to get than an annulment, (or maybe it's just the case that people think they are and naturaly, or traditionaly, seek a divorce rather than an annulment, plus as you say, divorces can certainly be more profitable for some) but if we banned divorces, that would leave only annulments and you can guarrantee that lawyers would be finding all sorts of loopholes in marriage contracts that allow for annulments and the percentage of annulments being carried out would rapidly grow.

So theres really no sanctity of marriage in the first place?
Quote by Vornik
Thanks for the advice. I'm going to put it, along with your other advice, into a book, the pages of which I will then use to wipe my ass.
#39
breaking news: UG member sarinv2 seeks to ban activist seeking to ban divorce in california
#40
Quote by Sarin v2
breaking news: UG member sarinv2 seeks to ban activist seeking to ban divorce in california


Breaking News: UG member sarinv2 didn't read the article relating to the activist seeking to ban divorce in California.
Quote by Zero-Hartman
Damn you, bodyheatseeker

Quote by Paramore.
bodyheatseeker, I will NEVER forgive you.

Page 1 of 2