Town Square

Post a New Topic

Divorce ban sponsor says measure a follow-up to Proposition 8

Original post made on Dec 2, 2009

A Sacramento Web designer who launched a satirical initiative to ban divorce in California said today the effort feels like "having caught a tiger by the tail."

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, December 2, 2009, 5:35 AM

Comments (30)

Posted by Tiger W., a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 2, 2009 at 9:08 am

Wow! Where can I sign this petition! I just hope it covers & negates any pre-nuptial agreements that might have been hastily constructed & helps to protect any future income or revenue from things like annuities, stocks...Nike Endorsements, you know, simple stuff like all regular people have to be concerned with.

Trust me. I'm ALL for protecting the sanctity of the marriage between a man and a few, er I mean ONE woman.

Posted by Sirena, a resident of Canyon Oaks
on Dec 2, 2009 at 9:25 am

Just another dumb thing to put on the ballet and cost the taxpayers millions of dollars....

Posted by Kay, a resident of Valley View Elementary School
on Dec 2, 2009 at 9:43 am

"If you want to protect traditional marriage," Marcotte said, "don't stop gays from getting married, stop straight people from getting divorced."

The ironic motivation for this proposed proposition thrills me. It is the most complete intellectual and rhetorical argument in support of gay unions ever put into one sentence. You gotta love that.

Posted by Janna, a resident of Dublin
on Dec 2, 2009 at 10:05 am

Yep, Sirena, just like Prop. 8!

I hope this makes it to the ballot. It'll be a good way to find out if people just talk the talk, or actually walk the walk. I would vote for this in a second.

Posted by SteveP, a resident of Parkside
on Dec 2, 2009 at 10:06 am

SteveP is a registered user.

This will never fly because it will jeopardize a major source of income for those blood-sucking divorce lawyers. Not to mention a rise in domestic violence from couples feeling trapped.
This guy is obviously conflicted and confused, given his decision to vote against Prop 8. He'd be better served focusing on his web design business, unless this is his way of gaining publicity. FAIL.

Posted by hybrid owner, a resident of Valley Trails
on Dec 2, 2009 at 11:40 am

Completely ridiculous! If this becomes a possibility, this could cause a rampant increase in the number of divorce cases prior to the ban takng affect. I would probably opt for a divorce immediately. It could also cause unmarried people to seriously consider the possibility of never marrying, and opt for a 'domestic partnership' instead. Do heterosexual couples even qualify for a domestic partnership? Hmm.....interesting dynamic. If not, would it be considered discrimination? Gee, how ironic would that be?
I also agree with SteveP on the violence issue. Besides all of the people who 'feel' trapped in their marriage, they actually would be trapped & forced to stay married. Stupid.

I hope this initiative dies a very quick & painful death.

Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Dec 2, 2009 at 12:48 pm

People don't need to feel trapped in their marriages. They can pack their bags and split asap! Especially if violence is involved.

I have always thought that taxes should be levied against people that divorce. Not too much, maybe 15% of their combined incomes for a limited time, like 5 years.

That way, you pay a price for undermining traditional marriage in the US.

I think that Domestic Partnerships should only be available to couples who are not able to enter into a marriage between one man and one woman.

Posted by Hmmmmmm?, a resident of Downtown
on Dec 2, 2009 at 1:11 pm

So follow my reasoning & see if this makes sense.

As a group, homosexuals are primarily defined by sexual attraction towards members of the same sex. Not traditionaly by race or ethnic background, socio-economic status, education, or other factors. Simply for the means of engaging in sexual activity with members of the same sex.

As a whole, the primary reason for divorce within the heterosexual community is infidelity. Sex outside the marriage. (with members of the same or opposite sex btw.)

If a groups general proclivity is to define themselves solely on the basis of their sexual identity alone then it is plausible to conclude that once given the right to a homosexual union that their inherent instincts to seek out new partners for the purpose of engaging in what will now be extra marital encounters will inevitably cause their unions to dissolve over same sex (or once again, possibly heterosexual) infidelity.

As Steve P. mentioned, the blood sucking divorce lawyers should be looking at homosexual marriage as the single largest source of revenue for their foreseeable future & therefore whatever their personal or religious beliefs are should wholeheartedly support their rights to marriage & all of the terms, clauses & consequences that come with it.

Not too far from reality huh?

Posted by Pleasanton Parent, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Dec 2, 2009 at 1:26 pm

I love the motivation behind it.

Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Dec 2, 2009 at 3:14 pm

I don't know anybody who defines the self primarily "by sexual attraction towards members of the same sex". The self is multi-layered, more complex and not so simply defined.

Adults who are married divorce for multiple reasons.

I think that married adults should not be allowed to engage in infidelity without having to do 6 months of community service + a fine of $5,000. That way, traditional marriage is not undermined by cheaters. If married adults cheat on a spouse more than once, they need to be incarcerated for 1 year.

Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Dec 2, 2009 at 4:57 pm


Posted by Big Poppa, a resident of Del Prado
on Dec 3, 2009 at 1:33 am

If this passes I will immediately divorce my wife before it becomes a law. Either that or "get rid" of her. She's getting old (43)and is never stops talking. Just like most women.

Posted by Victoria Emmons, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 3, 2009 at 7:34 am

Marriage is a contract and every contract has to have a termination clause.

Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Dec 3, 2009 at 11:16 am

I have no concerns about married couple breaking up and not living under the same roof. It's just not right to divorce because it does indeed undermine traditional marriage. It is also harmful to children when their parents get divorced.

Hopefully, this amendment will be on the ballot in 2010 so that finally, Californians have a opportunity to redeem themselves!

Divorce is the work of the DEVIL!

Posted by always working to be a good christian, a resident of Donlon Elementary School
on Dec 3, 2009 at 12:32 pm

When you speak of divorce being the work of the DEVIL, that may be so, but if you are a Christian, who are you to judge? No one forces you to fraternize with a divorcee but as a Christian, these people are hurting too and you should embrace them. I always try to live by the motto that unless you have walked in someone's shoes, you should not judge. There are many reasons for divorce and that is not for us to decide! Do you turn your back on a non believer of Christ? Do you say they should be fined or flogged, etc? NO! You go out and educate and pray that they will become a believer.

Posted by dublinmike, a resident of Dublin
on Dec 3, 2009 at 12:39 pm

Regarding Hmmmmmm's statement, I would like to rephrase using my words (in CAPS): "HETEROsexuals are primarily defined by sexual attraction towards members of the opposite sex." Sounds logical to me. But your using the term homosexual and not heterosexual in your reasoning is disingenuous, at best, and perhaps self-serving.

I have lesbian neighbors and know several of their close friends with very long term relations, and I find them satisfied as any human can be in a relationship. Please do not misunderstand me, they are not perfect and superior to married heterosexual as that they too have periodic disagreements with their partners. It's that this group I know personally are happy and adjusted, as you are (well, at least I think you are happy and adjusted, right?... :) )

Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Dec 3, 2009 at 1:17 pm

I am not Christian but I am an excellent judge of character.

In the State of California, marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman, between Adam & Eve, and not Adam & Steve! That is the LAW! When citizens enter into the covenant of marriage, it is for life, as in UNTIL DEATH DO US PART! No ifs ands or buts! Until death do us part means something, it's not just a cute expression that couples repeat for everybody's amusement during a marriage ceremony. INDEED, IT MEANS STAY THE COURSE!!!

Now if anybody is unhappy and they want to break their Sacred Vows, why not just consider living under separate roofs? That way, the sanctity of marriage is preserved and the rest of us are spared your humiliation. Shame! Failure!

If a couple doesn't have the backbone to work it out, they by all means sneak out the back door. The back door is for cowards and the immature who merely want to have it all their way and to hell with the rest of us. NOT!

You can't have it both ways mes petites. Grow up and smell the flowers. America was made by people who stuck it out through thick 'n thin. There was no place for cowards or the weak at heart. It was root hog die! That is what made America the country that it is.

All of a sudden, everybody wants a party, to march down the isle in a tux and pretty white lacy dress knowing all the while that it is one big farce. The SANCTITY of Marriage = NADA!
NOT SO FAST! You had better get up very early Miss/Mister Christian to try to pull your false faith act on me. Marriage = until death do us part.

I rest my case!

Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Dec 3, 2009 at 1:19 pm


Posted by hybrid owner, a resident of Valley Trails
on Dec 4, 2009 at 8:04 am

Based on Cholo's last comment instead of getting divorced people should just live under separate roofs to preserve the sanctity of marriage. There is much more to a marriage than just the mere act of living together. If we take the theory of 'until death do us part', then all of the other vows should be upheld as well. Love/chersh, Sickness/Health, honor/obey, richer/poorer, foresaking ALL OTHERS. How can a married couple live apart and still fulfull ALL of these vows? I would argue they cannot. If a couple has gotten to the point of being so unhappy as to not be able to live together, moving to separate residences would then in fact be (as Cholo says) sneaking out the back door. Why would one have the motivation to work anything out with a spouse who isnt present?? If you've moved out, basically you've moved on...

Having said that, I still believe this whole initiative is utterly riduculous.

Posted by SteveP, a resident of Parkside
on Dec 4, 2009 at 10:41 am

SteveP is a registered user.

Cholo, I'd be curious to see how your spouse feels about your opinion of marriage and divorce., I'm sure you've been married for years, right?

Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Dec 4, 2009 at 12:08 pm

I strongly believe that the NO DIVORCE initiative will be on the 2010 ballot. Already, thousands of volunteers are signing up help to collect the required signatures.

NO DIVORCE is a wake-up call for the reckless; parents who push their children into marriage. The time has come to think seriously about what marriage does NOT mean. Finally, a segment of Californians will have to face the reality of their protected DUPLICITY and discriminatory practices.

I have heard so many married couples speak out about the "Sanctity", "Sacred Vows", and the "Bliss of Married Life", that I'm about to puke. If you truly believe and practice what you preach, then please please please find a way to support the NO DIVORCE INITIATIVE IN 2010. SHOUT OUT AND SPREAD THE WORD. PLEASE, no biblical or unbiblical justification for Divorce in doesn't fly!


I rest my case.

Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Dec 4, 2009 at 6:11 pm

Web Link How divorce harms America.

Posted by LiveStrong, a resident of Avila
on Dec 4, 2009 at 9:40 pm

Cholo, the state can not give "Sacred Vows" as sacred is a religious term and the state could not be involved in religion anymore than we can have a nativity scene on the grounds of a firehouse.

Posted by Janna, a resident of Dublin
on Dec 4, 2009 at 10:26 pm

Yes, LiveStrong, but religion seems to be able to influence law as Prop 8 shows. The state should not be involved with the church and the church should not be involved with the state. The world would be a better place if we would keep those separate.

Posted by LiveStrong, a resident of Avila
on Dec 4, 2009 at 10:34 pm

You are right, but LONG ago, the state decided to get involved with the church, because the church was much more powerful. We should get the government out of marriage instead of trying to get the religion out of marriage.

Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Dec 4, 2009 at 10:55 pm

I think that divorce should not be allowed in the US. Divorce is harmful to traditional marriage and to the security of America. The harm that divorce does is intergenerational. We all suffer from divorce in this great nation.

You can't have it both ways mes petites. It's time to put an end to the violence that divorce perpetrates against traditional marriage. It Must Stop!!!

Posted by lyndalu, a resident of Amador Estates
on Dec 5, 2009 at 2:37 pm

Hmmm, what will people resort to if they can't end their marriage by divorce? I think we'll see a rise in mysterious deaths. People will get out of a bad situation one way or another. Great idea!

Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Dec 5, 2009 at 3:24 pm

what little faith you have...are you saying that married couples are big mouth weaklings who are impulsive and don't marry for love? that even jesus can't keep them together? what is it I don't understand? besides, nobody is saying you can't move out, live in another town, the law will only require that couples remain married...isn't that what you wanted? you got married to protect what then...duh...i've always thought that love is forever...until what happens?

Posted by anthony, a resident of another community
on Dec 14, 2009 at 10:05 pm

im barely turned 18, and registered to vote yay!!!.. and i hope this makes it to the ballots... because they have my vote on this... im gay myself and if they want to protect marriage well we should go all the way because they say (TIL DEATH DO US A-P-A-R-T) not (til divorce do us apart).....

people lets protect MARRIAGE its for our children its for GOD!!

Posted by Atrontanodo, a resident of Ridgeview Commons
on Dec 22, 2009 at 5:27 am

I think you are right. But you should cover more on this topic.

If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Jim Kohnen Post Office Signed into Law
By Roz Rogoff | 5 comments | 1,058 views

Never Say Never -- the Perry Indictment
By Tom Cushing | 7 comments | 782 views

CPRA: Balancing privacy, public's right to know
By Gina Channell-Allen | 3 comments | 646 views

Patience and very deep pockets can pay off
By Tim Hunt | 0 comments | 548 views