2010 California Marriage Protection Act

  • Thread starter buickgnx88
  • 12 comments
  • 1,924 views

buickgnx88

That Guy Over There
Premium
5,768
United States
Anoka, MN
2010 California Marriage Protection Act | Safeguarding marriage from the evils of divorce


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

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




Interview:

http://cockeyed.com/citizen/divorce/divorce.php

In early September, I heard Sacramento's own John Marcotte had filed a petition with the California Secratary of State.

John is trying to get a voter's initiative onto the 2010 ballot here in California.

We spoke on September 9th.





Rob ****erham: John Marcotte. You've filed a petition with the Secretary of State, in an effort to get a voter's initative on the California 2010 ballot.

John Marcotte: Yes. Filed the paperwork on September 1. It's the "2010 California Marriage Protection Act." I am trying to ban divorce in the state of California.

RC: Ok. So your act, if it became law, would make marriage undissolvable.

John: Exactly. The only exception would be if the marriage was "voidable" -- if you married an 8-year-old, you don't get to keep her. She goes back on the shelf. You can't marry the mentally incapacitated, etc.

RC: Ah, ok, so most normal marriages would be irreversable.

John: 99.99% of all marriages would be set in stone. It's a return to traditional values.

RC: Wow, that is amazing. Could it really happen? What steps remain to make this initiative into a valid, enforced law?

John: I am trying to extend the good work done with Proposition 8 last year. It could really happen. The United States has not always had divorce as an institution the way we do now. As a ballot initiative it bypasses the legislature and the governor. It's the will of the people made law.

RC: How long has divorce been around?

John: As a concept, pretty much forever, but in the past, divorces were at the very least difficult to get and frowned upon by society. Now they pass them out like Tic-Tacs.

RC: Who is providing the bulk of funding for this initiative?

John: It began as a self-funded initiative, but we've been collecting donations and already recouped a fair percentage of the filing fees. We hope to collect more donations and maybe start selling t-shirts, etc. to raise more funds.

RC: Are you going to hit the streets collecting signatures for the initiative?

John: We're going to set up a table in front of Wal*Mart and ask people to sign a petition to protect traditional marriage. We're going to interview them about why they thing traditional marriage is important, and then we'll tell them that we are trying to ban divorce.

People who supported Prop 8 weren't trying to take rights away from gays, they just wanted to protect traditional marriage. That's why I'm confident that they will support this initiative, even though this time it will be their rights that are diminished. To not support it would be hypocritical.

We're also going to collect signatures in front of "Faces," the largest gay nightclub in Sacramento.

RC: Can gay and unmarried people sign the petition to make this California Law?

John: Anyone can sign the petition as long as they are a registered voter in California. Sinners signatures work just as well as saints.
That brings up and interesting point. We are a Christian nation.
Jesus said, "What God has put together, let no man separate." Divorce is a sin.
Fun fact: Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality. Probably some sort of clerical oversight that will be rectified in the end of days...

RC: I think about half of the 10 commandments are against the law in California. Are you trying to increase that percentage?

John: Being gay is a sin, but it didn't even make the "top 10." I can't covet my neighbor's wife...that's close, but it doesn't hit the nail on the head.

RC: This initiative does seem like it would "Protect Marriage", but if two people decide to not be married anymore, shouldn't they be in charge of their own lives?

John: Sometimes other people need to sacrifice in order to protect my ideas about traditional marriage. It's just a fact of life. It's not about their soul-sucking sham of a marriage, it's about what we value as a society. We live in a divorce-promiscuous society. It's on the television, it's in movies, the newspapers. It's even in our kids textbooks.
I'm Catholic. In my religion, divorce is a sin -- completely impermissable.

RC: Sounds like you'd like to shield kids from learning too much about divorce.

John: I don't want the government teaching my child is "cool" or "legally permisable." That's a conversation that should happen in the family. It's the parents' role to teach the kids about reality -- not the state's.

RC: well, this is a bold step. Do you think you face a strong opposition?

John: The opposition will always be there. The secular progressives, gays and MSNBC hosts -- but we beat them once with Prop 8 and we'll beat them again. If people are thinking about getting a divorce, just remember "Hell is eternal, just like your marriage was supposed to be." Jesus still loves you if you get divorced, just not as much as before.

RC: What about people who are currently married? Will this law apply to them, or only new marriages?

John: I wish that I could force people that hate each other with the intensity of a thousand white suns back into a loveless marriage, but my attorneys tell me that getting that law passed would be unlikely in the current political climate.

I'll try to get a "win" by banning divorce and save that for 2012 -- when Sarah Palin will be president and/or the end of the world will occur.

RC: Its good to have a plan.

John: One step at a time. We can return this country back to it's proud, traditional Judeo-Christian roots.

RC: Thank you. We are almost done, and I appreciate you typing your responses.

John: No worries.

Thank you.

John's website is rescuemarriage.org

What are your guys thoughts on this act?

Edit: May be satirical...trying to track down more info.

Edit 2: Eh not positive. It seems legit due to a request being sent to the Attorney General here, but the "Rescue Marriage" site seems somewhat satirical. Well I guess you could give opinions on the validity as well. :dunce:
 
Last edited:
It will just make people go to other states like they did with Homo-marriages. Then again, I think that it will just be passed because I haven't heard any other news about this around here.(yet) Its pretty stupid to keep two people together that hate each other guts in a relationship that suppose to be close. Have they outlawed arranged marriages yet?
 
Last edited:
It may never pass... but this is California, who knows?

And yes, if they ban it in Cali, you can always go somewhere else.

I'm of two minds about this. On a personal level, I believe that marriage is a sanctified, binding contract. You shouldn't enter it if you aren't dead serious, and you shouldn't break it if there are no overwhelmingly good reasons to (your spouse is a serial killer but lied to you about the fact, for example)...

You only get married for one thing: to have kids and to raise them. If you're getting married merely for the free sex and tax breaks, you're not getting married for the right reasons.

But that's personal opinion. And a lot of people get married for the wrong reasons, or get married under the misconception that the person they're marrying is "compatible" with them or basically a good person. I don't think it's right to keep such people together, because if they can't see eye to eye, they'll probably make horrible parents.
 
It may never pass... but this is California, who knows?

And yes, if they ban it in Cali, you can always go somewhere else.

But how will celebrities have one week marriages?


Anyways, it shouldn't pass. There have been plenty of studies that say parent's sticking together "for the kids" is worse than just getting a divorce.
 
this is probably word for word straight from the California Legislator's mouthes, and no joke. I think President Regan is is now spinning at turbocharger speeds in his grave over california's wacky legislature alone!
 
John
John Marcotte: Yes. Filed the paperwork on September 1. It's the "2010 California Marriage Protection Act." I am trying to ban divorce in the state of California.

John: 99.99% of all marriages would be set in stone. It's a return to traditional values.
I remember reading a little bit of Foolkiller's take on erosion of right. Obviously this guy hasn't.

I wonder what's going to happen to marrriages in Cali. It seems like people will simply stop getting married in California. If they want to have a proper marriage they'll have to be residents of a different state, and then move to California after marriage. Or is it as easy as doing it in a different state?
 
This is absolutely crazy. Soon Cali's constitution will only apply to groups instead of individuals.
 
I'm glad the federal Constitution isn't quite as easy to completely ruin as California's has proven to be time and time again.
 
From a secular standpoint, I'm getting tired of the notion that we are a Christian nation. Yes we are a Christian majority nation, but to base our laws from the Bible is unfair to others of differing faith like me for example (muslim). It was in fact our founding fathers of America wanted the separation of church and state, and was one of the reasons why they were seeking independence. Now look what's happening. I think this law will be loosely administered at best, and then eventually repealed.

No wonder California is broke...it has idiots like him in office.
 
Back