Defense of Marriage? Let's Ban Divorce for Straight Californians
This is hilarious, it's also for real. Activists in California are taking the Prop 8 stupidity to its very logical conclusion: ban divorce in California for everybody. Want defense of marriage? Sign here.
NPR:
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.
But it's so very practical to keep marriage illegal for gays and lesbians. What a crock.
I've always said divorce is the only real threat to the institution of marriage.
This exposes just how nutso the anti-equal marriage (anti-LGBT) folks are and what happens when the weak minded are empowered by the simple-minded.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
This will most likely be a proposition being put before the people of California to vote on next November.
This is no joke and very much a serious issue. The people of California voted to protect marriage from the queers destroying the "concept of marriage" (Porp 8). So Californians will be asked if they TRULY want to protect the sanctity of marriage.
If this proposition goes down to defeat next year then the people of California have a small little dilemma about their so called hypocritical stance on the "protection of marriage". You can't have it both ways.
I believe that the best method to handle this is to put both questions together on the same proposition:
Vote: NO MORE DIVORCES AND NO GAY MARRIAGES
OR
Vote: YES ALLOW DIVORCE AND ALLOW GAYS TO MARRY
Then let's see how really serious the people of California are about this so-called "protection of marriage" sh*t.
It's what I've been saying for years: if you want to "protect marriage" you must ban divorce.
Of course "protecting marriage" is a euphemism for punishing GLBT folks and everybody knows it except for self-deluding xians.
I wonder how many Californians who voted to "protect marriage" by denying marriage to GLBT will vote against the "no divorce" law?
And what kind of mental/philosophical gymnastics will they have to undergo to reach this decision?
I am probably giving the Religious Handjobs too much credit for thinking about issues like this - they are simply following their knee-jerk desire to punish people who are different from themselves.
Pass the popcorn.
I too have been waiting for this one. I wish I was still in CA. I'd sign this thing in a heartbeat. It might help to lower the population of the state as spouses kill each other to get out of marriage.
Oh yeah. Religion isn't harmful at all.
Does C&L even bother to check these things out at all?
From the article:
"This is hilarious, it's also for real."
From the YouTube page for this video:
"In association with Acme Comedy Productions"
"Real?" Really?
you have made only two comments.
Both of them scold C&L for "getting it wrong."
Thank you for allowing us to drink deeply from the fountain of your inexhaustable wisdom.
Did I spell that correctly?
What is a joke is CA banning equal marriage.
And it aint funny.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
But is positively evil.
Another mean-spirited inequity brought to you by organized crime -uhh...I mean "religion."
Because celibate priests would NEVER bugger your son...
... you'd find that, yes, it's real.
between what is real and what isn't anymore.
Scams away!
"In association with Acme Comedy Productions"
In association with does not mean annulled by, it means in association with. Got it?
far left loon >.<
This proposition will put the ball squarely in straight people's court that voted to ban marriage for queers and "protect the sanctity of marriage".
You can't vote one way on the protection of marriage against the queers and then vote the other way when it involves your own straight marriages. In other words ... prove that you truly want to protect marriage: PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS.
Most important: Jesus was completely silent about the subject of homosexuality but he spoke numerous times very bluntly against the act of divorce.
If this proposition goes down to defeat next year then the people of California have a major dilemma about their so called hypocritical stance on the "protection of marriage".
This will most likely be a proposition being put before the people of California to vote on next November.
Isn't the mantra that we need a "war on divorce"? But I would fight it like crazy, because it took two divorces before I found the love of my life.
"Someday somebody related to some of these sufferers, these victims, these collaterally damaged souls, may try to kill you. And I have to tell you, I think you’ll have it coming." - Christopher Cooper
... it'd be like Proposition 8. It wouldn't be RETROactive, but PROactive.
...then the next logical question to you would be: How hard did or would you fight to give EVERYONE the chance to find and marry the love of THEIR life?
Good for you. I'm happy for you, however, it's apparent you do not feel marriage is sanctified. Neither do I.
It's a contract.
far left loon >.<
Hi-larious!
I couldn't take it any longer
Lord I was crazed
And when the feeling came upon me
Like a tidal wave
I started swearing to my god and on my mother's grave
That I would love you to the end of time
I swore that I would love you to the end of time!
So now I'm praying for the end of time
To hurry up and arrive
Cause if I gotta spend another minute with you
I don't think that I can really survive
I'll never break my promise or forget my vow
But God only knows what I can do right now
I'm praying for the end of time
It's all that I can do
Praying for the end of time, so I can end my time with you!!!
I was at a friend's condo Monday evening watching the football game with eight guys, all married but me. Everyone of those dudes admitted to being miserable and or wildly cheating on their wives.
The only people I know who are really into marriage are caterers, wedding arrangers and divorce attorneys.
You forgot the LGBT folks who are totally into marriage but can't.
:(
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
and oh so true
Politics is ugly
Let's ban California!
...would be the coup de grace that state GOP has not yet achieved.
NO ONE UNDER 30 SHOULD GET MARRIED.
Oh, and people need to take it easy on the breeding.
8}
He wasn't even allowed to marry any of his disciples.
I don't like divorce. I'm all against it. In fact, the #1 cause of divorce in this country is marriage. I'm all for banning marriage.
If corporations could be gay these kooks wouldn't even slow down a merger with another gay corp.
Just sayin'
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
the election of Michelle Bachmann....
Ain't democracy grand?
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
... the same people yelling 'State's Rights! State's Rights!' are perfectly fine with the federales arresting medical marijuana providers who are operating within the laws of their state.
we could vote out evil states which allow the Devil's weed to masquerade as a form of "treatment" rather than the sin it is.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
We now have legal medical MJ.
We don't have growers or distributors yet but they are working on it. I understand the state has issued a growers pemit/license to at least one grower.
*passes one*
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
Why wait for a permit? Just don't tell anyone, and I mean ANYONE!
I've heard it works.
far left loon >.<
...to complimenting Amanda Marcotte for the first time in my life.
The basic concept is nothing short of brilliant. But mucking it up with feminist and religious commentary takes what could have been a solid satiric hit and difuses its impact with a lot of stuff that will only appeal to left wingers. You don't need to influence left wingers, Amanda. They already agree with you. (My experience is that Marcotte reads everything where anybody might say something about her, so it's a real good bet she's going to see this.)
In short: Great idea but you kind of blew it.
I too think she blew it in the presentation. Its like a bad SNL skit. I don't like seeing the whole thing treated as a joke. It cheapens the message. I'd rather she push the topic seriously and highlight the hypocrisy of the religious right.
But, the way the message is conveyed could be changed as this progresses, if it progresses. So, I'm Californian, where do I sign? (seriously...how does one sign this petition?)
Oops. The link says John Marcotte. Any relation to Amanda? I guess my comment should say "he" not "she".
Agreed.
The Eddie Izzard formula is, 70% how you look, 20% the presentation, and 10% the message (or something like that.)
far left loon >.<
. . he's proving with this scam people will believe anything that's obvious.
Can we next expect a proposition to declare evangelical Christianity the official state religion? Or has that already happened? Those wacky Californians! Ironically, I have an ex-wife out there.
"Buy the ticket, take the ride."
Hunter S. Thompson
anything to get national attention no matter how absurd.
*cough*
Jon & Kate Gosselin
Richard & Mayumi Heene
Tareq & Michelle Salahi
Carrie Prejean
Sarah Palin
Joe the Still Not A Real Plumber
Ashley Todd
Glenn Beck
... learn? Hell, it's damned near replacing learning to walk as one of the first things a child learns.
Get on the radar = millions.
Hard work is for losers?
far left loon >.<
a capital crime.
I'd say 'stoning' would be in order.
But I'm actually afraid that people in this country will take it seriously and really try to ban divorce.
The reasoning behind passing Prop 8 was the defense of marriage. If those who voted to pass Prop 8, as well as passing similar laws in 30 other states, are so vigorously only attempting to defend marriage, then outlaw divorce. Seems logical to everyone except those who find inequality ok, but may want a divorce later on. This doesn't seem even a bit hypocritical to you? REALLY?!?!?! Are you thinking of divorce in the future, Bigmama? How did, or would, YOU vote on Prop 8?
... as Pat Paulson was when he ran for President. I think he still gets votes to this day, but even if this magically qualified to get on the ballot, I don't think it stands a chance of actually winning at the ballot box.
If the prospects of it actully making it onto the ballot terrifies a few people however, that's probably a good thing.
on which people are terrified.
Tick here to defend marriage __ (meaning: ban divorce)
Tick here if you don't defend marriage __
far left loon >.<
...is to remove 'marriage' from the legal realm all together. People can get 'division of property orders' when separating, but keep government out of marriage entirely. If you want to declare someone your partner from a legal standpoint, then you can do that, but the term and the institution of marriage, if not applicable to all people in the society, should not stand as a legal institution.
...it's not JUST the government who is to blame. When you have Christian groups paying off politicians like whores, you're bound by laws passed by those whose pockets are lined to the extent that they are satisfied enough to pass laws that prohibit equality to all. There wouldn't even have BEEN an issue if GLBT groups were able to pay a larger bribe to public officials. I guess better a whore than a homo in the Christian eyes.
bad execution (writing is poor)
I love that. I hope it gets on the ballot.
It's way too easy to get divorced. If people are really serious about "defending" marriage, then obviously divorce should be on the table before the issue of gay marriage. It's way more damaging.
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
I joined the Facebook group yesterday!
Then we ALL have the same rights...gays, straights, singles, etc.
It's a good thing the wacky-assed christians don't believe in suicide and the 21 virgins, cause we'd be just as nutball crazy as the dumb ass muslim extremist wacko's.
Why do ignoramuses love to flaunt it?
eek
Flaunt what? How many divorces they've had?
far left loon >.<
As a Californian and the proud parent of a lesbian, I'd vote for this in a heartbeat. If they want to defend marriage, then by God defend it.
http://www.royzimmerman.com/lyrics/faulty_def...
I'm on the floor and I can't stop laughing! :-D
NOBODY 2012
Everybody thinking of getting marry should have to attend a 6 month course and get counseling. Everybody thinking of getting divorce should be required to attend a class and get more counseling. There should be a two year trial seperation to give the couple time to cool off. They shoudl have to attend weekly couple and individual counseling for the entire period. And only then they should be allowed to get a divorce.
Is there a history of satiric state ballot initiatives that passed? My point is that I take this issue seriously, and I think that the approach, satire, reduces the seriousness of the issue with some voters. I'd like to think that angling itself as let's-amuse-and-make-you-ponder gives the initiative an advantage, but I doubt it. Also, I don't think that most people who voted "yes" on Prop 8 had any problem with being hypocritical before Prop 8 passed, so pointing out their hypocrisy to them now has limited influence.
It also does not help that the initiative is an all-out ban (that's part of the satire, I realize). If a Prop-8-reaction initiative were not satiric and attempted something more modest than a ban, it might get more serious consideration and respect. For instance, how about a gradualist approach that eliminates or reduces some/all legal & financial advantages, or rights, afforded people who marry multiple times? These are the rights/advantages that are immediately granted straight couples who marry over and over and over -- and who each time get to re-up those rights 100%, each new marriage just as fresh as the first time. But gay couples never get these rights accorded to them, and instead have to purchase them by hiring attorneys to draw up legal contracts, a process that ends up costing thousands of dollars (and if your gay union dissolves, you repeat the costs with your next partner).
A divorce-created, stepped reduction in marriage legal advantages/rights for the serial monogamist might look like this: when you are 1x divorced, if you enter a second marriage, then you lose approximately 25% of the marriage rights that a couple on their first marriage possess. Your second divorce & third marriage means a 50% reduction, etc. By the fifth marriage, 0%, you have to hire attorneys to draw up contracts, same as gay people.
I don't find this anywhere or anything about this humourous or satirical. I find this video absolutely dead-pan serious. Your pointing out all the down-sides to divorce is a great side note.
But I return to the true issue here and my earlier argument: If this California divorce bill/proposition is not being used to point out the whole hypocricy of the Yes on Prop 8 then it certainly gives the holier-than-thou crowd a true dilemma: You can't have it both ways.
In my personal opinion the better alternative for these "marriage protection" bills and propositions across America should be a combined issue together:
Vote: NO MORE DIVORCES AND NO GAY MARRIAGES
or
Vote: YES ALLOW DIVORCE AND ALLOW GAYS TO MARRY
Then I believe we would truly see just how really serious the people of America are about this so-called "Protecton of Marriage" sh*t.
NY State Senator Diane Savino spoke eloquently before the vote of the Marriage Equality bill Dec 02, 09 (the bill was defeated). She captured exactly what the whole essence of "marriage equality" for all means.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCFFxidhcy0
Comments are closed on this entry