Posted by Tiger W., a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood 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 hybrid owner, a resident of the Valley Trails neighborhood, 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 Hmmmmmm?, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, 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.
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 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!
Posted by always working to be a good christian, a member of the Donlon Elementary School community, 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.
Posted by hybrid owner, a resident of the Valley Trails neighborhood, 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 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 CA...it doesn't fly!
Clearly, DIVORCE IS THE WORK OF THE BEAST. YOU HAVE BECOME THE BEAST AND THE BEAST IS YOU.
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 the Avila neighborhood, 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 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!!