California Group Seeks Ban on Divorce

In a move to protect traditional marriage even further than 2008′s Proposition 8, a grassroots campaign has begun to ban divorce in California.

One of Marcotte's T-shirt designs.  Click to enlarge

One of Marcotte’s T-shirt designs. Click to enlarge

Inspired by Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California, John Marcotte comments,

California has a divorce rate that some have computed to be as high as 75%. Even after removing Zsa Zsa Gabor and Larry King from the pool — we still are left with a rate in the high 50s.

Proposition 8 tried to make traditional marriage safer by making sure that Adam Lambert and Ryan Seacrest can’t profess their eternal love to one another. Prop 8 backers recognized that gay marriage was just the beginning of a very slippery slope. Next people would be marrying goats, trees and particularly stylish armchairs.

But Prop 8 only attacked the problem from the edges. I’m going after the heart of the matter. That’s why I drafted the 2010 California Protection of Marriage Act to ban divorce in the state of California. If you can’t get divorced, you can’t destroy traditional marriage.

The language of the ballot measure is laid out on the group’s website,

2010 California Marriage Protection Amendment.

SECTION 1. Title. This act shall be known as the “2010 California Marriage Protection Amendment.”

SECTION 2. Section 7.6 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:

No party to any marriage shall be restored to the state of an unmarried person during the lifetime of the other party unless the marriage is void or voidable, as set forth in Part 2 of Division 6 of the Family Code.

On the site, Marcotte points out the valid fact that, according to Jesus, divorce is adultery. As we know, adultery is sin, and sin leads to damnation. Marcotte suggests that, “Jesus still loves you if you get divorced — just not as much as before“.

Conservative Christians who supported Proposition 8 surely would also support this legislation to help their brethren and sistern avoid damnation! Only true hypocrites would not vote for it . . . and surely, there are no Conservative Christian hypocrites.

Show your support for this bold initiative! You can become a fan of the movement on Facebook, or buy one of the nifty T-shirts pictured above.

46 Responses to California Group Seeks Ban on Divorce

  1. This proposal is so dumb, i cannot even believe that i am writting this comment to it. If people cannot get out of a bad marriage the legal way they are going to do it the leathel way. Simple as that.

    • Ever hear the word sarcasm? This is not a real issue, if you read the article, you would know that this is strictly to show the hypocrisy of the ban on gay marriage. i.e. gay marriage is wrong in god’s eyes, so it should be outlawed; divorce is wrong in god’s eyes, so why should it be legal? Perhaps try to understand something before bashing it next time :P

      • I understand that if it is voted into law, it is still a law regardles of how ridiculous it is. Stop being an idiot Gearge W.ite and stop trying to destroy our constitution. Our country is based on OUR FREEDOM and I am sick of idiots like you voting away our rights. PULL YOUR HEAD OUT PEOPLE!!!! Stop voting away your own rights!!! I swore an oath in the military to protect the constitution of the United against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC!!! Most of the enemies of our constitution are the DOMSETIC UNEDUCATED AND BLIND IDIOTS WHO VOTE AWAY OUR RIGHTS!!!

      • Don’t you read the Bible? Jesus himself said you can divorce for Adultery. Thank God! My husband cheated on me more than once in our 27 years of marriage, and is living with someone now. Take him back, you crazy! Thanks to the Bible for allowing me to divorce. God understands the pain of infidelity. READ THE BIBLE!

        • Wrong, Patti. A man can divorce his wife for fornication. A woman does not have that option. A husband or wife may divorce the other if the other is a nonbeliever. Don’t YOU read the Bible?

          • WOMEN do have the same option!!! I KNOW MY BIBLE. I KNOW MY GOD.

          • Please show me the verse which says so. On the page I linked for you, the references to divorce are displayed, and Jesus only makes reference to men putting their wives away, not the other way ’round. If you’ve read the Bible, you know that women are consistently treated as property, not as equal to men. The Biblically-based rights of women are nothing like the rights of men. The primary concern regarding adultery in the Bible is inheritance rights. An adulterous woman could bear the child of someone else, who would then inherit the husband’s property; this harms the husband and his rightful heirs. An adulterous man, on the other hand, would do no harm to his children’s inheritance rights or to his wife, thus it is not addressed. Are you SURE you’ve read the Bible?

        • I do agree with you, Patti! Same situation with me!!! Thank God, that He does restore, those that stand on His promisses! I would have been dead by now, if I stayed with him! Also… Gods Grace is suffient for me.

          • Do you believe that God cares if you agree with Patti? Don’t you’d think He would prefer You to be busy agreeing with His Word?

          • Jenny, you won’t hear from me anymore, I’m not here for a debate. I will pray that the Holy Spirit will open your eyes to the truth.

          • I’ve read your comments, Patti, and I pray the same for you. God’s truth is in the Bible, which you clearly ignore when it doesn’t say what you want to hear.

        • Yes but most divorces these days are just because they want to. I believe if you have a good reason like that then it’s ok but if your just getting divorced because you want a new husband on the year.

          • yes. but who decides what a good reason is? an unjust reason for you may be a perfectly logical and exceptable for some one else. that is why people have basic freedoms divorce being one of them. every person has there own needs and desires. some people want or need divorce to fulfill those. weather it is to get away from an abusive spouse or to pursue a new love. but that is up to each individual. and for the religious who believe divorce is a sin, that is between them and there god.

  2. The Bible also states that if an unbeiving spouse wants to leave, to let that person go…you’re not boung. Also, in cases of adultry of a spouse, a Christian can divorce and remarry.

  3. I think this is brilliant!

  4. Am I the only one that sees the irony in the fact that “till death do us part” could be referring to a “till” as defined as a cash register? ;)

  5. One small problem with the whole premise of Christians being hypocritical. The Bible does allow for divorce in certain circumstances. Jesus said, “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, EXCEPT for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” Matthew 19:9 The other thing to remember is the Bible is written for Christians. The principles are true but non-believers are not going to accept this. Christianity is not about changing culture it’s about changing each individual heart and turning it towards Christ by repenting of sin.

  6. The problem isn’t divorce. The problem is that too many people get married too quickly and/or for the wrong reasons. Perhaps the law should require prospective spouses to take a one year course in marriage before being allowed to get married. This would give each person an opportunity to really think through the prospect of marry their partner!

  7. I found out my husband was a child molesting, liar, fraud,and did I mention bombastic, pontificating fool after I married him. So I would have to stay married to him? I am a Christian and would love to not have had this happen to me not to mention my poor stepdaughter but I also consider what he did as far as molestation as a sexual sin worse than adultery.

  8. Look I think banning divorce in California is the most stupid thing to do, because many people who are abused by either the husband or wife have to get out of the marriage through divorce. If you all take the only legal step for abused people to get out of their horrible marriages, then the abused people might have to kill their abused spouses. I truly think that the author of this bill is a stupid asshole and he needs to wise up. I am a proud Wiccan and I do believe in man+woman, woman+woman, and man+man getting married, but if some spouse abuses their wife or husband. He or she should not be married.

  9. The problem isn’t Marriage or Divorce, the problem of all problems is religion. Who in their right minds would believe any of that BS in the first place? We live in a sick society of traditional thinking minds set in their ways through childhood conditioning. Logic and reason have seem to be left out of the bible, yet the human mind can’t see past the stupidity that is religion, maainly for fear of being sent to their imaginary hell.

    • Hell might sound like an imaginary place to you. Only time will tell.While there are Christians who talk the talk, there are plenty who walk the walk, too. Religion IS the problem. When you are just following a trumped up religion with a bunch of man-made rules, I could see your point. What most Christians have is a relationship with Jesus Christ, The Son of the Living God. Who, by the way, rose from the dead and is alive sitting at the right hand of God mediating between God and men.I love Him and appreciate everything he has done for me. Talk against religion- go for it, but don’t talk against Jesus.

    • religion isn’t the problem. the problem has always been fascist like you who just can’t stand what other people think. its like you said “Who in their right minds would believe any of that BS in the first place?” hate speech like that started the holocaust. only in this case an atheist is the one using the hate speech not some religious radical. you are no different then the idiot religious people you are always crying about in your ignorant hate speech. what do you care what people think? what do you care whats in the bible?…you dont believe it remember.

      • You are right on James. I appreciate all of your input here regarding this matter.

        • you know im an atheist myself. but i respect and encorage everyone religions believes. and i support any religion that promotes peace, love, and good will towards men. where these other atheist get the idea that it is there right or duty to try and bring down other peoples faith is beyond me. that offends me as an atheist.

  10. I think this is brilliant. It’s the same type of convincing that the backers did to convince married couples that allowing same sex marriage would dome their own Sanctity of Marriage. Marriage is not about sex it’s about love and commitment between 2 adults for the rest of your life. I hear that even Atheist get married, they are not getting married under the eyes of God, they get married because they love each other. Not believing in God does not make you a bad person. Sorry you churches you really can’t use that excuse anymore. I looked up the definition of the “Sanctity” it says “The state or quality of being sacred or holy; holiness; saintliness; moral purity; godliness”. So if Atheist are getting married I think they would have a problem with the word godliness & holiness. So in other words the word” Sanctity” should never have combined with the word “Marriage”. So with that said I support the ”Banning of Divorce” to any one married under to “Sanctity of Marriage”.

  11. Everyone knows that this law is just being proposed because of the vote for Prop 8. Everyone also knows that the people of California will not pass it because it is so outrageous. The point is, why is this law so outrageous yet denying other tax paying citizens their right (and mind you, many of them also believe in God and attend church on a regular basis). If you think this is ridiculous then you should also think Proposition 8 is as well. Everyone should be more worried about their kids being crammed into a small room with 60 others and not learning how to read or the fact that our society cares more about what happened to Britney Spears last week and cares less about what is going on in the Congo or with with anything else in the world for that matter. Let people marry whom them like. And for those of you who believe that marriage is sacred then you’re living in a delusional world, if the gays and lesbians want to join that world, LET THEM!

  12. so let me get this straight. if i support gay marriage ban but oppose a divorce ban i am a hypocrite because they are both against god. well. i am an atheist, i oppose gay marriage(tho i have nothing against them or what they do) and i oppose a divorce ban. but i am not a hypocrite because i have no religion so i just punched a big hole in your stupid anti faith argument. this whole thing offends me as an atheist. and as an atheist i find religious bashing very sickening, and that is all this is. why don’t you leave these Christians alone. all i hear is how gays go to church too. so now you are bashing the same religions that the gays are part of. and im sure a lot of people on hear are atheist like me. as an atheist nothing offends me more then other atheist bashing on religion. and to them i want to say stop the religious bashing. if you are an atheist you have no religion and therefor have no right to bash it because you don’t understand it no matter how many time you read the bible. you have to feel religion and as an atheist you don’t feel it. and when you pissed off atheist’ start badmouthing religions then you make us all look bad.

    • No, James. If you support a gay marriage ban because gay marriage is against God’s Law, and you do not support a divorce ban even though divorce is against God’s Law, you are a hypocrite. You’re not a hypocrite. You’re just a bigot.

      • i don’t see how i am a bigot. as i said in my first comment i have nothing against gays or what they do. but the fact is that marriage has been man and women from the beginning of time. i didn’t think up the definition.but i do support civil unions that give gays the same rights as if they are married. the bigots are all those people on here who badmouth religion. and the hypocrites are the people who don’t believe in religion but quot bible scriptures. and who are you to tell someone they are a hypocrite for there religious beliefs. who are you to dictate religion anyways? going on here telling people they can’t divorce if there religion says so. WTF? that is not your call. that is between them and there god. i hope you are not an atheist because if so you are making all of us look bad. if you are a christian then you should know that only god can judge.:P

        • Actually, marriage was originally between one man and as many women as he cared to “own”. Try reading your Bible; you will see that many patriarchs had multiple wives. Marriage contracts were originally about ownership of a woman and control over her offspring, not “love” or “romance”. The decline in arranged marriages, even in Western culture, is a very recent trend. Divorce being legal is also a very recent trend. Please, understand history before making ridiculous arguments about marriage being “between one man and one woman since the beginning of time”. Also, see John Boswell’s “Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe “. Who is making atheists look bad? Maybe the guy who can’t be bothered to learn facts before making assertions.

          • i have made it very clear that i am an atheist so i don’t know why you are telling me to read the bible. i don’t know why you quot it because you seem to be anti religion so any religious argument you make is moot and hypocritical. and anyways marriage has been around longer then the bible and Christianity so you should learn your history. also. i never said that marriage was necessarily one on one. but between male and female. the bible as you quoted it said a man can marry as many women as he chooses. so that still reinforces that marriage has always by definition male & female. this discussion is about gay marriage not bigamy. bigamy is a whole separate issue. and maybe thousands of years age there were same sex unions in Europe. what does that mean. it died out for a reason. it wasn’t that long ago in Europe and America a man could marry his 10yrold daughter off to a 40yrold man for a couple of cows and some potatoes. does that mean we should do it today because they did it then?

          • I’m telling you to read the Bible because you are asserting that “marriage has been between one man and one woman since the beginning of time”. In the Bible — or ANY book about pre-Western cultures — it’s crystal clear that this is not the case.

          • i don’t know what that has to do with marriage today or for the last thousand years or so. like i said. i never said one on one but i did say man and women. but again bigamy is a whole separate issue in its self. in biblical times i could sell my daughter into slavery, does that mean we should do that now because they did it then. and sorry. most cultures(but not all) going back in time had some sort of moral opposition against male on male sex. but no one voted no on same sex relations. they did however vote that they would not recognize same sex marriage. prop 8 didn’t ban same sex. it just gave a legal definition of marriage. now if the state wanted to stop marring people and give a license as “life partners” and make that available to everyone then that would be fine. and if people wanted to be married then they could get that from a church. you can’t force a church to perform religious ceremonies. so the church would have the right to marry at there own discretion. that just solved the marriage problem. and back to your divorce ban. well that is just an obvious attempt to attack religion so you are no more tolerant and just as much of a bigot as the people you attack.

  13. This idea is great, in fact that this could help the economy, but also help the youth to come about stronger decisions in life. If the people of the United States voted to ban divorce, California would save $4.8 billion alone, think of how much we could save if all 50 states considered this proposition, by sacrificing some freedom to save what freedom we could enp up with in the future.

    • there are a lot of things we could do to save money. but sacrificing freedoms. hmmm. lets get rid of the court systems. think of how much money we would save. and if you are innocent you don’t need a lawyer or trial to explain yourself. we could get rid of social programs. that would save a bunch of money. i know. lets get rid of free speech. then local gov won’t have to spend money on security for protests. what other freedoms can we sacrifice? how about we get rid of free elections. think of how much money would be saved if people didn’t spend 100′s of millions on campaigns. and all other money that comes with having elected officials. ya. give up some freedoms. good idea:P

  14. I’m all for The Ban On Divorce because it means hubby will never leave me LOL! But seriously, it’d also help those who are already the victims of divorced get their justly due alimony payments, because so often a divorced man has children again out of a new marriage (maybe even the one that broke up the first) and then his wallet is split. And who doesn’t get the attention and funds they deserve? The first kids. Well I am a First Come First Served kind of gal and I don’t want my kids shortchanged because some other kids come along later in an unholy marriage that’s improper in God’s Eyes (not to mention in the eyes and ears of many churches), so I am for The Ban On Divorce 100%. Count Me In!

    • Trust God to supply all of your needs according to His riches in glory. Do not wish that some other child would go hungry or go without because your marriage broke up. Why should the innocent suffer or be called names like unholy?Because that is what you are saying. Leave the kids out of it. Even without divorce your husband could still have made children with someone and been married to you, then what would you have done? You simply cannot legislate everything away and then try to enforce stupid rules. You just have to live your life the best way you can and make good choices- open your eyes before you get married. Love/lust is blind.

    • you got it backwards. alimony pays the ex wife. child support goes to the kids. child support is based on ability to pay. if your ex can’t pay that much then you need to get a job and support your kids. this isn’t the 1950′s. there is no reason a women can’t get a job and support her kids. my grandma was a single mother with 4kids. she worked 5jobs in 3 cities with no car to support her kids and pay her mortgage. she never once used welfare(in fact she turned down welfare so she could work. my gammy had a worken mans pride)and she died a millionaire. the reason she was a single mother?….. my grampa was a drunk and used to beat the shit out of her and the kids. with your divorce ban she would have had to stay and most likely been murdered.

  15. So many miss the real point of this. The point is a popular vote is not the way to look at civil rights EVER. If I wanted to make it law so that only people with an IQ over 120 should be allowed to vote, and so many people agreed stupid people shouldn’t vote, then there really isn’t a legitimate argument to stop me… unless of course you can just acknowledge, DON’T LET PEOPLE VOTE ON RIGHT! and if you can’t agree on that, I have a petition for you to sign, because I don’t think someone as stupid as you should be allowed to vote.

  16. So my husband that cheated on abused me and my child I’m stuck with ? What happened to worship god in your own way as well I think staying married to man who hits me is a bigger sin to my kids

    • That's what you get for marrying a man that you really didn't know. Yep, "til death do us part". Stay in that marriage until he kills you. If marriage was really sacred to you, you wouldn't have married him without a very long and intense engagement.

  17. avatar David Justin Lynch

    As one who was divorced against my will in 1991, I support this initiative wholeheartedly. I also believe every person has the right to marry any other person they choose, gender notwithstanding.

  18. The people behind the initiative imply that there is something inherently wrong with divorce. Marriage is a contract, nothing more or less-and should be able to be dissolved.

    • I think the people behind the initiative were painfully obvious in their intent to say, "If heterosexuals wish to outlaw gay marriage because it violates God's Law, then unless they are hypocrites, they should also outlaw heterosexual divorce because it equally violates God's Law".

  19. Any true Christian, Jew or Muslim should have signed that petition and supported the ban on divorce. This only proves that Prop 8 was NEVER about the defense of marriage and always about hatred and bigotry towards gays.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>