2010 California Marriage Protection Act

[DanGarion]

I love this stuff!

2010 California Marriage Protection Act | Safeguarding marriage from the evils of divorce (http://rescuemarriage.org/)
Safeguarding marriage from the evils of divorce
In 2009, California passed the “California Protection of Marriage Amendment,” or “Prop 8.” Proposition 8 bravely protected the institution of traditional marriage by making sure that gay people could not participate in it.

I loved Proposition 8, but felt it did not go far enough. So fresh from the office of our legal counsel, I present the 2010 California Protection of Marriage Act.

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.

We will be filing the papers to get it on the ballot within the week.

[CamEdwards]

I've always said that the people who are opposed to gay marriage because it violates the sanctity of the institution should be far more concerned about the ease of divorce laws in this country. Good for them. :)

[flere-imsaho]

That's pretty awesome.

[Crapshoot]

Be that as it may Cam, they're still fucking assholes. And I have no desire to couch it in anything other than those terms. :D

[Rizon]

Good thing I got divorced before this.

[Dutch]

Be that as it may Cam, they're still fucking assholes. And I have no desire to couch it in anything other than those terms. :D

So you would have voted for Prop 8? Good to know. :)

[Kodos]

I got defriended on Facebook by my very vocal ultra-conservative (but still divorced once) sister-in-law last year after I suggested that gays couldn't possibly sully marriage worse than heteros have, and that they should be given a shot at it. :)

[Crapshoot]

So you would have voted for Prop 8? Good to know. :)

Cmon Dutch, even you aren't that lacking in reading comprehension. Prop 8 was idiocy of the highest levels (and I'm sure you would have been a supporter).

I'd be shocked if this got anywhere near the signatures needed to get on the ballot; Even if a significant segment of Prop 8 voters are hardcore Christians who hate "teh gays", but they sure don't want to lose the ability to get divorced.

[CamEdwards]

I'm fairly certain the site Dan linked to is spoofery of the highest magnitude (have you taken a close look at the t-shirt offered for sale?), but feel free to turn your outrage-meter to 11.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

It's satirical, of course, but I got the feeling that he was serious about seeing it through (at least as far as he can get it).

[SackAttack]

It's satirical, of course, but I got the feeling that he was serious about seeing it through (at least as far as he can get it).

If you read the Q&A with the guy, you cannot miss the sarcasm oozing from his every word.

He's serious about taking this as far as he can, to prove a point if for no other reason, but I don't think he's serious in the "banning divorce will save marriage forever" sense that some people will take it.

[dawgfan]

If you read the Q&A with the guy, you cannot miss the sarcasm oozing from his every word.

He's serious about taking this as far as he can, to prove a point if for no other reason, but I don't think he's serious in the "banning divorce will save marriage forever" sense that some people will take it.
Yep - his point is to showcase the hypocrisy in certain segments of the population that supported the ban on gay marriage in California by pushing this legislation.

[DanGarion]

Cmon Dutch, even you aren't that lacking in reading comprehension. Prop 8 was idiocy of the highest levels (and I'm sure you would have been a supporter).

I'd be shocked if this got anywhere near the signatures needed to get on the ballot; Even if a significant segment of Prop 8 voters are hardcore Christians who hate "teh gays", but they sure don't want to lose the ability to get divorced.

Read back what you originally stated... something about 'fucking assholes'... And now read Dutch's tongue in cheek response... now do you get it? :)

[CamEdwards]

Read back what you originally stated... something about 'fucking assholes'... And now read Dutch's tongue in cheek response... now do you get it? :)

So Dutch's comment was "rimmed for his pleasure", so to speak?

[Crapshoot]

Read back what you originally stated... something about 'fucking assholes'... And now read Dutch's tongue in cheek response... now do you get it? :)

I did, I did. :D

[JPhillips]

Don't know exactly where to put this, but this seemed as good as any place.

"A U.S. judge in Boston has ruled that a federal gay marriage ban is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage. U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro on Thursday ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act."

Wonder what the Supremes will do in a couple of years when it reaches them.

[Sun Tzu]

Good for him. The homophobia in this country is freaking ridiculous. You can shroud it behind a mask of religion if you want, but as far as I'm concerned that's no different than saying an entire race of people is bad because your religion says so.

My Aunt had the shit kicked out of her when she was a kid because a couple christian kids wanted to see if "the Jew really had a tail." I imagine that line of thinking came from the same book that says gay marriages are wrong. Am I correct?

[JediKooter]

Good for him. The homophobia in this country is freaking ridiculous. You can shroud it behind a mask of religion if you want, but as far as I'm concerned that's no different than saying an entire race of people is bad because your religion says so.

Agreed. Or even if you take religion out of it...saying that because someone is different, they should be denied rights that others have because a large group of people don't like their lifestyle.

My Aunt had the shit kicked out of her when she was a kid because a couple christian kids wanted to see if "the Jew really had a tail." I imagine that line of thinking came from the same book that says gay marriages are wrong. Am I correct?

That's just fucked up, but, not surprising. I was harassed by a lot of kids because I was not mormon when I lived in a small town in Wyoming when I was about 9 or 10.

[DaddyTorgo]

Don't know exactly where to put this, but this seemed as good as any place.



Wonder what the Supremes will do in a couple of years when it reaches them.

I love living in Boston!!! :D

[molson]

All it takes is a liberal pet cause for people to suddenly change their minds on state's rights, I guess.

Correct decision though.

[molson]

Dola - Dangerous road for gay rights' advocates though. If appellate courts affirm a state's right to define marriage, that SHOULD eliminate the possibility of future federal legislation that provides a right to gay marriage.

[dawgfan]

It's going to be a fascinating case to see which principle wins out - a State's right to define marriage vs. the ability of the federal government to legislate against discrimination. Currently the Defense of Marriage act is in opposition to the anti-discrimination principle, but as the tide continues to turn against homophobia in this country, that will eventually be overturned or stricken.

I think eventually what is going to happen is the term "marriage" is going to be strictly a religious concept in terms of legality, that as far as the government is concerned, any consenting adults will be allowed to join in a legal union and whether or not it is called a "marriage" will be up to churches.

[JPhillips]

Dola - Dangerous road for gay rights' advocates though. If appellate courts affirm a state's right to define marriage, that SHOULD eliminate the possibility of future federal legislation that provides a right to gay marriage.

If that were ever to come to pass it's way down the road. There's no way that a bill establishing a federal right to same-sex marriage would get out of committee right now. I'd guess it's at least a decade, maybe two before that could even be considered. Right now the better path is establishing a right to marry in states as they can and hoping for a Supreme Court decision on equal protection grounds.

[larrymcg421]

And anyways, a bill could certainly clarify that, while states have the right to define marriage, they must exercise that right within the 14th Amendment.

But I don't expect legislation to be what finally ends the bigotry. It's going to take the courts to do something about it.

[flere-imsaho]

I think eventually what is going to happen is the term "marriage" is going to be strictly a religious concept in terms of legality, that as far as the government is concerned, any consenting adults will be allowed to join in a legal union and whether or not it is called a "marriage" will be up to churches.

That makes too much sense to ever happen. :D

[SackAttack]

It's going to be a fascinating case to see which principle wins out - a State's right to define marriage vs. the ability of the federal government to legislate against discrimination. Currently the Defense of Marriage act is in opposition to the anti-discrimination principle, but as the tide continues to turn against homophobia in this country, that will eventually be overturned or stricken.

I think eventually what is going to happen is the term "marriage" is going to be strictly a religious concept in terms of legality, that as far as the government is concerned, any consenting adults will be allowed to join in a legal union and whether or not it is called a "marriage" will be up to churches.

Which is how it should be. The government has no more business deciding who's allowed to have a marriage than the church has deciding how much I'm supposed to pay in taxes.

That said...between the equal protection and "full faith and credit" clauses, I would have to think that the court nullifying DOMA would have the effect of starting things down the path mentioned above.

[JediKooter]

When did churches buy the rights to the term marriage?

[AENeuman]

I think eventually what is going to happen is the term "marriage" is going to be strictly a religious concept in terms of legality, that as far as the government is concerned, any consenting adults will be allowed to join in a legal union and whether or not it is called a "marriage" will be up to churches.

That's just the type of moderate, rational comment that can ruin a thread like this... good job

[MacroGuru]

That's just fucked up, but, not surprising. I was harassed by a lot of kids because I was not mormon when I lived in a small town in Wyoming when I was about 9 or 10.

I got that same shit in Utah because I wasn't mormon and my parents smoked.

[JediKooter]

I got that same shit in Utah because I wasn't mormon and my parents smoked.

I'm not surprised by that at all after my experiences with them. Not all of them were like that, but, there was enough of them to realize it was more the rule and not the exception.

[RendeR]

And people wonder why I despise organized religion in pretty much any form.

[Sun Tzu]

And people wonder why I despise organized religion in pretty much any form.

Who are these people?

/Seinfeld