Sunday, September 13, 2009

2010 California Marriage Protection Act

My friends, there's a spectacular movement going on in California right now, which will definitely protect the institution of marriage far better than Proposition 8 ever will.

It's the 2010 California Marriage Protection Act, and it has one simple goal. To prevent any married couple from getting divorced. Ever.

The whole thing takes just over 75 words (including the title):
2010 California Marriage Protection Amendment.

SECTION 1. Title. This act shall be known as the “2010 California Marriage Protection Amendment.”

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.
Simple, right?

He gave the following web interview to one of the better 'zines out there,
Rob Cockerham: John Marcotte. You've filed a petition with the Secretary of State, in an effort to get a voter's initative on the California 2010 ballot.

John Marcotte: Yes. Filed the paperwork on September 1. It's the "2010 California Marriage Protection Act." I am trying to ban divorce in the state of California.

RC: Ok. So your act, if it became law, would make marriage undissolvable.

John: Exactly. The only exception would be if the marriage was "voidable" -- if you married an 8-year-old, you don't get to keep her. She goes back on the shelf. You can't marry the mentally incapacitated, etc... 99.99% of all marriages would be set in stone. It's a return to traditional values.

RC: Wow, that is amazing. Could it really happen? What steps remain to make this initiative into a valid, enforced law?

John: I am trying to extend the good work done with Proposition 8 last year. It could really happen. The United States has not always had divorce as an institution the way we do now. As a ballot initiative it bypasses the legislature and the governor. It's the will of the people made law...

RC: Who is providing the bulk of funding for this initiative?

John: It began as a self-funded initiative, but we've been collecting donations and already recouped a fair percentage of the filing fees. We hope to collect more donations and maybe start selling t-shirts, etc. to raise more funds.

RC: Are you going to hit the streets collecting signatures for the initiative?

John: We're going to set up a table in front of Wal*Mart and ask people to sign a petition to protect traditional marriage. We're going to interview them about why they thing traditional marriage is important, and then we'll tell them that we are trying to ban divorce. People who supported Prop 8 weren't trying to take rights away from gays, they just wanted to protect traditional marriage. That's why I'm confident that they will support this initiative, even though this time it will be their rights that are diminished. To not support it would be hypocritical. We're also going to collect signatures in front of "Faces," the largest gay nightclub in Sacramento.

RC: Can gay and unmarried people sign the petition to make this California Law?

John: Anyone can sign the petition as long as they are a registered voter in California. Sinners signatures work just as well as saints. That brings up and interesting point. We are a Christian nation. Jesus said, "What God has put together, let no man separate." Divorce is a sin. Fun fact: Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality. Probably some sort of clerical oversight that will be rectified in the end of days...

RC: This initiative does seem like it would "Protect Marriage", but if two people decide to not be married anymore, shouldn't they be in charge of their own lives?

John: Sometimes other people need to sacrifice in order to protect my ideas about traditional marriage. It's just a fact of life. It's not about their soul-sucking sham of a marriage, it's about what we value as a society. We live in a divorce-promiscuous society. It's on the television, it's in movies, the newspapers. It's even in our kids' textbooks. I'm Catholic. In my religion, divorce is a sin -- completely impermissible.

RC: Sounds like you'd like to shield kids from learning too much about divorce.

John: I don't want the government teaching my child (what) is "cool" or "legally permissible." That's a conversation that should happen in the family. It's the parents' role to teach the kids about reality -- not the state's.

RC: well, this is a bold step. Do you think you face a strong opposition?

John: The opposition will always be there. The secular progressives, gays and MSNBC hosts -- but we beat them once with Prop 8 and we'll beat them again. If people are thinking about getting a divorce, just remember "Hell is eternal, just like your marriage was supposed to be." Jesus still loves you if you get divorced, just not as much as before.

RC: What about people who are currently married? Will this law apply to them, or only new marriages?

John: I wish that I could force people that hate each other with the intensity of a thousand white suns back into a loveless marriage, but my attorneys tell me that getting that law passed would be unlikely in the current political climate. I'll try to get a "win" by banning divorce and save that for 2012 -- when Sarah Palin will be president and/or the end of the world will occur.

RC: Its good to have a plan.

John: One step at a time. We can return this country back to its proud, traditional Judeo-Christian roots.
They even sell T-shirts to that effect, reading: You said "Til death do us part." You're not dead yet.

Admittedly, there may need to be a "fornication" clause added in. After all, it's right there in Matthew 19:9, where Jesus said "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." But that would be difficult to regulate. And really, isn't it better to be too harsh at the beginning?

Now, Mr Marcotte is not the perfect man. He has been known to read comic books, and occasionally uses foul language. But which of us is perfect? This man is doing God's Work. And what more can we ask of him?


Tyra said...

I'll honestly laugh if this passes. It's one's right and privilege to marry whom they want within the legal bounds of the law, and now we're trying to take away the right to divorce?

This isn't a question about the sancity of marriage in the Holy Bible, because that honestly shouldn't be tied into our Government's idealistics, but this is pretty much taking away the rights of those who feel they're in an unhealthy and unhappy relationship. Especially those who are physically and mentally accosted by their loved ones.

I'm sorry. I just can't find a reason why this would even pass other than supreme idiocy from our Nation's goverment and California's legislation.

Nameless Cynic said...

Well, the sad part is, you agree with me, but don't know that you do. You may want to see a doctor about that irony deficiency.

Anonymous said...

I completely agree with you Tyra. Sheer idiocy. And to Nameless Cynic, how exactly is she agreeing with you when she clearly states the opposite of what you said? You make no sense. Go to your psychiatrist and have a mental evaluation done. You can obviously type, but your reading and comprehension skills are non extstent. You may have suffered brain damage from having your head so far up your own $&@. Your reasoning skills are also seriously lacking. Brush up on your vocabulary too. You obviously do not know the definition of irony. And by the way, your pun was terrible.

Nameless Cynic said...

First of all, no dissing the bad puns. Bad puns are my life.

And speaking of that pun, the truth of the matter is found within the statement "irony deficiency."

I've always said that the surest way to ruin a joke is to try and explain it. Read the interview again. Go to the website. And look up the word "satire."

I weep for America's future, if you people are the best examples.