No More Divorce in California?

News Type: Event — Seeded on Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:36 PM EST

Article Source: The New York Times

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- Til death do us part? The vow would really hold true in California if a Sacramento Web designer gets his way.

In a movement that seems ripped from the pages of Comedy Channel writers, John Marcotte wants to put a measure on the ballot next year to ban divorce in California.

Published to:

luckydog's Column, All of Newsvine
Groups: Odd News, Political Analysis, rationalists, US News and Views
Regions: New York

What's this?

Who's leading the conversation?

This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.

8.8

3.0

{"commentId":10963977,"authorDomain":"lilith41"}

Lilith41

I don't believe that'll ever happen. As much as I love my state, California isn't going to lose divorce any time soon.

{"commentId":10963977,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"lilith41"}

5 votes

#1 - Tue Dec 1, 2009 12:21 AM EST

{"commentId":10966092,"authorDomain":"dkaz"}

dkaz

I can't move to California. I have a tendency of saying..........NEXT??

{"commentId":10966092,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"dkaz"}

6 votes

#1.1 - Tue Dec 1, 2009 8:17 AM EST

{"commentId":10966137,"authorDomain":"lilith41"}

Lilith41

I agree, but then again I never married either.....

It's like why bother and what's the point? I'm not a marriage nor co-habit fan.

Gimme the yummies and then I go home to ZZZ in my own comfy bed. =)

{"commentId":10966137,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"lilith41"}

6 votes

#1.2 - Tue Dec 1, 2009 8:21 AM EST

{"commentId":10994151,"authorDomain":"ruthlessmoose"}

ruthlessmoose

have I told you ladies lately how you delightful you are? :)

{"commentId":10994151,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"ruthlessmoose"}

2 votes

#1.3 - Wed Dec 2, 2009 1:26 PM EST

{"commentId":10994630,"authorDomain":"Jake-413451"}

Jake-413451

Meh, to each their own.

An interesting proposal though. I don't think it's likely to pass, but hey go for it.

I think those of us who are in support of getting government out of the marriage business altogether should jump all over this. Could be an effective step to getting people to actually wonder why does the government have any role in marriage today.

Going to have to get my brother-in-law, relatives, and old high school buddies out there to help him collect signatures.

{"commentId":10994630,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"Jake-413451"}

2 votes

#1.4 - Wed Dec 2, 2009 1:49 PM EST

{"commentId":10999293,"authorDomain":"melrosefaulkner"}

Lissa Rose

I agree, Jake. I don't think it is likely to pass, but I don't think that it is inteded to actually pass. It is more of a political statement, and I do kind of agree with it.

If the sanctity of marriage was so important to these people, they would be more thoughtful before getting marriage as a general rule. (I am not saying that this is true in all cases or anything like that. I just know that some people have a tendency of jumping into something like this without being able to actually grow up enough to act like a mature adult should.

Also, the government shouldn't have anything to do with what people think of as a marriage. It does, but that does not mean that it is right. It has to be that people are legally allowed to attach themselves to each other or not. There shouldn't be exceptions to the rules. (This does not include incest. LOL)

I would sign, but I don't know how much good that is going to do. I don't live in California.

The only problem with something this cut and dry is that there are cases like spousal abuse that has to be taken into consideration.

{"commentId":10999293,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"melrosefaulkner"}

2 votes

#1.5 - Wed Dec 2, 2009 4:51 PM EST

{"commentId":11030354,"authorDomain":"bonosrama"}

bonos_rama

Seriously, ANYONE who is divorced but is against gay marriage has NO place talking about the sanctity of marriage!

{"commentId":11030354,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"bonosrama"}

2 votes

#1.6 - Fri Dec 4, 2009 10:31 AM EST

{"commentId":11035546,"authorDomain":"politicc"}

Truth be told-1349420

Also, the government shouldn't have anything to do with what people think of as a marriage. It does, but that does not mean that it is right

You are right. But truly, The government is just an institution waiting to jump at every opportunity to profit from whatever people are undertaking. Whatever one decides to do, they decide you need a license for it. If you decide to get married, they'll issue you a marriage license for a fee; but which you can wave by just shacking up with your partner. If you decide to get divorced, for a fee they will divorce you while you may still be in love with your partner. They don't give a damn. You decide to be born, they hold on your birth certificate and charge you a fee if you need a copy of it. You decide to die, for a fee, they will burn your body if so you wish, and give you a death certificate. Now why does someone need a death certificate? Beats me. You decide to work, they tax your salary. You want to sing or play music, sport, or sell things, license for a fee, and if people are buying your songs and musics, product or services, poke over their taxes out of the profit. You decide to be bad, they make your badness a violation of a law, arrest you, and free you on bail. You decide to drive, they have a license for you for a fee. You decide to buy a car, your car needs, registration, inspection, insurance for an annual premium. If and when fed up with all these fees, you drop dead, they might still continue to exploit your organs if donated and implanted in someone else. Yep! that's the government.

{"commentId":11035546,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"politicc"}

#1.7 - Fri Dec 4, 2009 2:33 PM EST

{"commentId":10963987,"authorDomain":"schmittyj"}

SchmittyJ

The practice of Democracy as satire? What a colossal waste...

{"commentId":10963987,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"schmittyj"}

3 votes

#2 - Tue Dec 1, 2009 12:24 AM EST

{"commentId":10965520,"authorDomain":"rainkiss"}

Rainkiss

Is it? Or is it highlighting the insanity of permitting civil rights to be up for a vote?

Clever guy.

{"commentId":10965520,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"rainkiss"}

9 votes

#2.1 - Tue Dec 1, 2009 7:08 AM EST

{"commentId":10988532,"authorDomain":"abacass01"}

abacass

Rainkiss

Is it? Or is it highlighting the insanity of permitting civil rights to be up for a vote?

Clever guy.

QFT

{"commentId":10988532,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"abacass01"}

2 votes

#2.2 - Wed Dec 2, 2009 9:01 AM EST

{"commentId":10964130,"authorDomain":"xoxchi"}

Uthaclena

Marcotte just wants to preserve "the sanctity of marriage;" California prevented them nasty Ho Mo Sexuals from marrying, the next logical step is to ban divorce. You know, what GOD has joined together...? After that it'll be a cakewalk in outlawing abortion, contraception, and repealing women's right to vote. Then, re-establish slavery! No more eating shellfish or mixing fabrics! Death by stoning! The Bible sez so!!!

{"commentId":10964130,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"xoxchi"}

8 votes

#3 - Tue Dec 1, 2009 12:47 AM EST

{"commentId":10964151,"authorDomain":"schmittyj"}

SchmittyJ

Again... the practice of Democracy as satire? What a colossal waste... why not better spend the associated time and money on a law that could actually repeal said amendment?

But if you just wanna trot out tired old cliches of what you take Christians to be... well, I guess that's one approach...

{"commentId":10964151,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"schmittyj"}

3 votes

#3.1 - Tue Dec 1, 2009 12:50 AM EST

{"commentId":10994420,"authorDomain":"ruthlessmoose"}

ruthlessmoose

ya... aren't people who take ridiculous extremes and blow things outta proportion without knowing what they're talking about annoying?......

{"commentId":10994420,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"ruthlessmoose"}

1 vote

#3.2 - Wed Dec 2, 2009 1:39 PM EST

{"commentId":11002338,"authorDomain":"schmittyj"}

SchmittyJ

They sure are...

{"commentId":11002338,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"schmittyj"}

1 vote

#3.3 - Wed Dec 2, 2009 7:50 PM EST

{"commentId":11002981,"authorDomain":"swamijim-1"}

swamijim sez

ruthless 3.2--

Nice try... but satire, like subtlty, is lost on some folks...

{"commentId":11002981,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"swamijim-1"}

2 votes

#3.4 - Wed Dec 2, 2009 8:36 PM EST

{"commentId":11006080,"authorDomain":"schmittyj"}

SchmittyJ

It is? That's a shame... I would've thought everyone would have bought into snarky subtlety...

{"commentId":11006080,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"schmittyj"}

#3.5 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 12:32 AM EST

{"commentId":11016092,"authorDomain":"ruthlessmoose"}

ruthlessmoose

swamijim sez - LOL

{"commentId":11016092,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"ruthlessmoose"}

1 vote

#3.6 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 3:05 PM EST

{"commentId":11030049,"authorDomain":"ruthlessmoose"}

ruthlessmoose

uthaclena... I'm not familiar with that part of the Bible... which book is that in?

{"commentId":11030049,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"ruthlessmoose"}

1 vote

#3.7 - Fri Dec 4, 2009 10:15 AM EST

{"commentId":11030381,"authorDomain":"bonosrama"}

bonos_rama

"But if you just wanna trot out tired old cliches of what you take Christians to be... well, I guess that's one approach..."

One man's cliche is another man's true depiction....you know what they say. If the shoe fits, wear it.

{"commentId":11030381,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"bonosrama"}

1 vote

#3.8 - Fri Dec 4, 2009 10:32 AM EST

{"commentId":10964568,"authorDomain":"rdonaldsnyder"}

R. Donald Snyder

But I'm depending in the threat of alimony from a divorce to keep my wife from kicking me out! This is not fair!

;-)

{"commentId":10964568,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"rdonaldsnyder"}

5 votes

#4 - Tue Dec 1, 2009 2:13 AM EST

{"commentId":10966015,"authorDomain":"Pvt-Public"}

Pvt-Public

Ban divorces and just watch the murder and suicide rates climb.

{"commentId":10966015,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"Pvt-Public"}

3 votes

#4.1 - Tue Dec 1, 2009 8:10 AM EST

{"commentId":10974357,"authorDomain":"luckydog"}

luckydog

Climb? Here in Oregon people are whacking their ex-wives and girlfriends and kids on an almost daily basis. And we thought the baby boomers were crazy.

{"commentId":10974357,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"luckydog"}

2 votes

#4.2 - Tue Dec 1, 2009 2:59 PM EST

{"commentId":10979066,"authorDomain":"pditslear"}

K9Paul

Just as long as they don't put a grandfather clause in it. My ex lives in California and they can keep her!! LOL

{"commentId":10979066,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"pditslear"}

2 votes

#5 - Tue Dec 1, 2009 7:04 PM EST

{"commentId":10988336,"authorDomain":"british-lassy333"}

Britlassy

No California divorces?

I predict Hollywood will have to relocate the entire movie industry should this happen, to another state..!!!!

{"commentId":10988336,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"british-lassy333"}

3 votes

#6 - Wed Dec 2, 2009 8:42 AM EST

{"commentId":10994733,"authorDomain":"ruthlessmoose"}

ruthlessmoose

as satirical as it may be... he's not off base lol, that's the best part

{"commentId":10994733,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"ruthlessmoose"}

2 votes

#7 - Wed Dec 2, 2009 1:54 PM EST

{"commentId":10995397,"authorDomain":"tappymcwidestance"}

Tappy McWidestance

This is almost as good as Texas accidentally banning all marriages because of the poor wording in their anti-gay marriage law.

{"commentId":10995397,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"tappymcwidestance"}

3 votes

#8 - Wed Dec 2, 2009 2:24 PM EST

{"commentId":10999336,"authorDomain":"melrosefaulkner"}

Lissa Rose

rotflmao!!!!

{"commentId":10999336,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"melrosefaulkner"}

1 vote

#8.1 - Wed Dec 2, 2009 4:53 PM EST

{"commentId":11014706,"authorDomain":"politicc"}

Truth be told-1349420

A legal divorce is the safest way out of a life-threatening marriage. If this should be banned, people would take on killing their spouses as a last resort to set themselves free. I hope this is only a joke. If this should pass, then marriage should be a contract between two individuals for a period of time. How about that? That's crazy!

{"commentId":11014706,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"politicc"}

1 vote

#9 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 2:06 PM EST

{"commentId":11024595,"authorDomain":"melrosefaulkner"}

Lissa Rose

I was thinking about that, but I doubt this would pass. I do think it is a very public way of pointing out hypocricy.

{"commentId":11024595,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"melrosefaulkner"}

3 votes

#9.1 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 10:16 PM EST

{"commentId":11024979,"authorDomain":"politicc"}

Truth be told-1349420

You dig what I mean! Day after day you are hearing more and more crazy things, You would say the world is coming to an end.

{"commentId":11024979,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"politicc"}

1 vote

#9.2 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 10:40 PM EST

{"commentId":11049824,"authorDomain":"tappymcwidestance"}

Tappy McWidestance

If this should be banned, people would take on killing their spouses as a last resort to set themselves free.

But at least they would be fulfilling their marriage vows.

{"commentId":11049824,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"tappymcwidestance"}

1 vote

#9.3 - Sat Dec 5, 2009 1:21 PM EST

{"commentId":11055423,"authorDomain":"politicc"}

Truth be told-1349420

So, you mean death do them part? Funny.

{"commentId":11055423,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"politicc"}

#9.4 - Sat Dec 5, 2009 9:08 PM EST

{"commentId":11018702,"authorDomain":"luckydog"}

luckydog

I have always thought that before you are issued a marriage license you should be required to have a learners permit for at least a year.

{"commentId":11018702,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"luckydog"}

2 votes

#10 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 4:56 PM EST

{"commentId":11018958,"authorDomain":"schmittyj"}

SchmittyJ

I agree... I'd even offer 2 years... get past that "honeymoon" phase.

{"commentId":11018958,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"schmittyj"}

2 votes

#10.1 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 5:06 PM EST

{"commentId":11024670,"authorDomain":"melrosefaulkner"}

Lissa Rose

I don't remember where I read it, and it has been years since I have read it, but most divorces occur within the first 5 years of marriage. LOL That "learner's permit" might need to last that long.

{"commentId":11024670,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"melrosefaulkner"}

1 vote

#10.2 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 10:21 PM EST

{"commentId":11026112,"authorDomain":"luckydog"}

luckydog

I think most people know within a year or so if they are compatible. Most just hang on hoping that things will get better.

{"commentId":11026112,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"luckydog"}

1 vote

#10.3 - Fri Dec 4, 2009 12:06 AM EST

{"commentId":11027751,"authorDomain":"melrosefaulkner"}

Lissa Rose

True.

I do have to wonder at some of the things people will ignore while dating that they cannot put up with once they are married.

{"commentId":11027751,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"melrosefaulkner"}

2 votes

#10.4 - Fri Dec 4, 2009 6:40 AM EST

{"commentId":11030168,"authorDomain":"ruthlessmoose"}

ruthlessmoose

well, the 2 main problems people encounter:

1. lack of communication, in so many areas of life

2. people think they can change another person

{"commentId":11030168,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"ruthlessmoose"}

2 votes

#10.5 - Fri Dec 4, 2009 10:21 AM EST

{"commentId":11030928,"authorDomain":"politicc"}

Truth be told-1349420

Even dating may no longer be necessary or need to be for long before you marry someone if it's going to be a term-contract. One will no longer panic to discover that their partner carries some vile habits they cannot stand that they have to cope with for life. They would just have to rush their marriage contract to its end so they can take off as fast as possible before soft emotions talk them into renewing it. most Marriages would no longer based on love. Infidelity would no longer create as much chaos in the home, but the unfaithful party would have to pay injury price to the other. But if a contract-marriage is to end prematurely, the guilty party would have to compensate or continue to support the other through the expiring date of the contract. At the end of the contract, some men would still not want to let go their sweet wives who wish to move on and change life style and who might even get killed. Some men are selfish.

But in all this, another party involved would suffer the worst of it, it's the children, if any exists. Their welfare, happiness, and dignity would face serious impacts. No prenuptial agreement would be needed. During dating period, less gifts, less flowers, less romance, less arguments would partake. And women would have to impose a price for their time, services and utilities provided during the contract period. And if a man wants sex and kids too, that will be more money and the contract has to be extended until the last child turns 18. Yuck! This would be such a big social mess. I think I'm beginning to appreciate the existence of divorce law for life-term marriage. If there should be no divorce and contract marriage is not allowed, then people would just have to shack up together till disgust for each other bring them apart; no legal marriage, or contract, or divorce, just free trade. That would be better.

{"commentId":11030928,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"politicc"}

1 vote

#10.6 - Fri Dec 4, 2009 10:59 AM EST

{"commentId":11041637,"authorDomain":"melrosefaulkner"}

Lissa Rose

Most people that I know that are divorced usually complain about that. I have a cousin that within a 6 month dating period was left 4 times. They became preggers within the first month of dating. She still married him. He left her before their 2 month anniversary. I was thinking about that when I stated that I am amazed at the things that people will ignore.

As far as changing a person, it doesn't happen. Hang that one up. Either accept the person if you can deal with whatever the issue is or move on.

And yeah, Truth, the gov't wants money. LOL No big secret there. I do agree with some of the licensing, but I do not agree with a lot of the different taxes.

{"commentId":11041637,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"melrosefaulkner"}

1 vote

#10.7 - Fri Dec 4, 2009 8:44 PM EST

{"commentId":11050769,"authorDomain":"luckydog"}

luckydog

There are people out there than can live with anyone (not that they should) and others that can live with no one. We should accept that and quit punishing people with our tax code and our social mores to embrace that.

{"commentId":11050769,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"luckydog"}

1 vote

#10.8 - Sat Dec 5, 2009 2:49 PM EST

{"commentId":11055492,"authorDomain":"politicc"}

Truth be told-1349420

What are you talking about? Nobody is pushing nobody here. We are just commenting on what would probably happen if divorce would be forbidden. Are you on tract?

{"commentId":11055492,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"politicc"}

#10.9 - Sat Dec 5, 2009 9:14 PM EST

{"commentId":11032738,"authorDomain":"politicc"}

Truth be told-1349420

I have always thought that before you are issued a marriage license you should be required to have a learners permit for at least a year.

I wouldn't say a learner's permit but rather a two-year safe "free trial period" during which both groom and bride-to-be live together and evaluate each other at the most critical areas of conjugal life. If they judge themselves more or less suitable for each other, they could go ahead and tie the knots. And even then, divorce should still be allowed, because people can change overnight or may pretend to be good and hide their true colors to achieve their goals. As for being compatible, I don't think there is such thing as two people being compatible with each other, other than being strongly attracted to each other to remain united for as long as that attraction takes to fade away. They can only try to be compatible based on what they feel for each other and how they make each other feel. Compatibility is a lie used to promote marriage just like a man would promise marriage to a hard-to-get woman in order to have sex with her. But many women don't fall for this crap, they do it because they want. If being compatible means to have and share the same aspiration, same feelings, concepts, understanding, taste, belief, moral value, life style, judgment, reaction, qualifications, qualities, vices, social status, background, education, race, etc, then many couples who got married and remain so for many years or until death did them part, are not compatible with each other. And they sure have differences, arguments, fights, and personality conflicts. On year or two isn't sufficient to know someone from head to toe, for some of the person true colors are very slow at showing off; and by the time you realize it, it's too late; you were already too attached, too inseparable, and too committed to each other that it no longer matter unless your life is threatened. The only two things that are compatible and remain so for a while are your feet and your shoes. And as your feet grow longer or wider, or bear bunions, they and your shoes become incompatible and you have to replace the shoes. Do I make sense here?

{"commentId":11032738,"threadId":"735896","contentId":"3569245","authorDomain":"politicc"}

1 vote

#11 - Fri Dec 4, 2009 12:19 PM EST

{"canLink":false,"threadId":"735896","isPrivate":false}

LUCKYDOG

Backyard

No More Divorce in California?

Published to:

FUN STUFF:

COMPANY STUFF:

LEGAL STUFF: