To protect marriage, ban divorce
The campaign to grant full equality to gays and lesbians suffered another blow earlier this week when the New York state legislature voted against same-sex marriage. It was a disappointment; marriage-equality proponents believed they had the votes to pass the measure.
According to The New York Times,
The 38-to-24 vote startled proponents of the bill and signaled that political momentum, at least right now, had shifted against same-sex marriage, even in heavily Democratic New York. It followed more than a year of lobbying by gay rights organizations, who steered close to $1 million into New York legislative races to boost support for the measure.
The measure was defeated by the usual combination of craven legislators and fear-mongering social conservatives who claimed that allowing gays and lesbians to marry would destroy traditional marriage. That argument continues to claim adherents, even though it has never made any sense. Traditional marriage has been in decline for decades — and gays and lesbians have nothing to do with it. (I know gays and lesbians had nothing to do with the dissolution of my marriage.)
However, if social conservatives are going to continue to fight marriage equality on the grounds that it would destroy traditional marriage, they ought to be willing to make a dramatic move to protect traditional marriage: ban divorce. About half of all marriages in this country end in divorce, and banning it would do more to (artificially) shore up the marriage rate than anything else.
So, a California man is trying to put an initiative to ban divorce on the ballot in that state.
The effort is meant to be a satirical statement after California voters outlawed gay marriage in 2008, largely on the argument that a ban is needed to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage. If that’s the case, then Marcotte reasons voters should have no problem banning divorce.
“Since California has decided to protect traditional marriage, I think it would be hypocritical of us not to sacrifice some of our own rights to protect traditional marriage even more,” the 38-year-old married father of two said.
Marcotte said he has collected dozens of signatures, including one from his wife of seven years. The initiative’s Facebook fans have swelled to more than 11,000. Volunteers that include gay activists and members of a local comedy troupe have signed on to help.
If social conservatives are serious about “protecting marriage,” they’ll work hard to ban divorce and the initiative will pass.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
216 comments Add your comment
Jack
December 4th, 2009
4:40 pm
Mike -
“Nonsense. The votes have been whether to change existing laws that specify that marriage is between a man and a woman.”
No, in several states there was no such language specifying marriage was between a man and a woman. Unless the constitution was amended to have that language, it would have been legal for gays to marry. So the bans were enacted to prevent that from happening. So you can ban something before it happens.
“” And the fact is, gay marriage exists in other states and countries. So your argument it has to exist to ban it is bogus.”
This is an absurd statement. I thought it was understood that we were talking about our country and our laws.”
Last time I checked, MA, CT, VT, NH, and IA were all parts of our country. If it’s allowed in one state it exists.
“Pleas let me know what current law “bans” gay marriage.”
Are you really going to twist that the constitutional amendment that ADD the definition of marriage as one man, one woman are not bans of gay marriage? Any law that specifially excludes a group IS a ban.
Majority Rules
December 4th, 2009
4:41 pm
Wow there are absolutely NO (none, nada, zip ) G&L represented on this blog. OMG, no Bible Thumpers either. Rather boring “fight” I must say.
On a final note, let just take this time to Pray for Rosie O’Donnell and Rejoice that her former partner (Kelly) saw the light & broke free from the grips of the psychotic beast. Can you image if they actually were allowed to be married and then be BANNED from divorcing. Kelly is now singing praises to The Lord, oh yes she is!
Cheers & Merry Christmas!
Go Lions
December 4th, 2009
4:54 pm
I love watching old movies, especially when the Lions eat the Christians……
Evil-Doer
December 4th, 2009
5:01 pm
He who speaketh with forked tongue, speaketh with a lisp
Bajaboy
December 4th, 2009
5:14 pm
I love how Christians base laws and morals on the Bible, but discount the words of Jesus as if He was another Al Gore.
What about love, tolerance, hospitality to strangers and providing for widows and orphans, caring for the sick?
The Muslim world calls us non-believers because we claim to be Christians but follow none of the tenets laid out by Christ.
TnGelding
December 4th, 2009
6:38 pm
Great idea! Everyone should be forced to live in misery. Why does the gay community want to ruin good relationships with marriage?
Tom Middleton
December 4th, 2009
7:16 pm
TnGelding
@ 6:38 pm
Right, TN, and can you imagine what will happen to the murder rate when all those folks in really bad marriages have to stay in them? Can you say “through the roof”?
Now there’s your real threat to traditional marriage. It has nothing to do with gays and hate-filled Christians!
JeffreyRO5
December 4th, 2009
11:34 pm
I would love to understand how the religious goofballs are so strongly against legal same-sex marriage but are ok with legal pre-marital sex, legal adultery and legal divorce! What about legal birth control? Didn’t God say to be “fruitful and multiply”?
Obviously you Jesus freaks aren’t against all these other things that violate the Bible. So what’s the logic for singling out gay people? And where do you get off telling others how to live their lives? Why don’t you morons get your own houses in order first!
Majority Rules
December 5th, 2009
2:09 pm
“Didn’t God say to be “fruitful and multiply”?”
umm, Jeffery – the G&L may well be fruitful but they are unable to multiply (produce biological children). I have never met a Jesus freak? What are you babbling about?
Majority Rules
December 5th, 2009
2:14 pm
“Now there’s your real threat to traditional marriage. It has nothing to do with gays and hate-filled Christians!”
Additionally, I have never met a hate-filled Christian. However, this blog does seem to be loaded with hate-filled “marriage equality proponents”. What a pity.
MarkBoston
December 5th, 2009
2:47 pm
Will we as human beings EVER transcend the craving to keep others down.. How f**ked up are we as a society when we are all so intolerant and hateful toward each other when something is outside our own life experience …. How sad.. Perhaps we just need the ET”s to land and tell us to knock it off. Maybe THIS would be the ONLY thing that would bring ALL peoples together and celibrate our differences
Manny Aguilar
December 5th, 2009
3:50 pm
Jesus HATES me!
Tom Middleton
December 5th, 2009
8:05 pm
Majority Rules@2:14pm: “Additionally, I have never met a hate-filled Christian. However, this blog does seem to be loaded with hate-filled ‘marriage equality proponents.’ What a pity.”
Then let me rephrase that, Mr. Rules: Now there’s your real threat to traditional marriage, and it has nothing to do with gays and EQUALITY-HATING Christians!
Dude, ever heard of the Golden Rule? It’s all about equality, that’s if you’re a REAL Christian, so are you? It definitely doesn’t look like it from here. And are you saved? Ten dollars says you think you are. How simply amazing!
Tebow Cried
December 5th, 2009
9:01 pm
Jesus, why have u have forsaken me-perhaps same-sex marriage ain’t know big whoop…….
Matthew
December 7th, 2009
1:28 am
Mike:
I guess my long standing annoyance with your posts continues to be that they come across as snide, smug rejections with little in the way of intellectually honest rebuttals of the actual points you attack. Believe me, an Ivy education in Epistemology will teach you about rhetoric, and I say that as someone whose not nearly the killer wordsmith that a J. L. Austin is considered to be, even after the education.
You immediately dismiss all logical or illogical arguments with your own claims that I don’t find to be any more “level” than the bias coming from the left. “Gays have as much right to marry someone of the opposite sex as heterosexuals do.” Really? Even I found that argument to be overly litigious and intellectually dishonest, considering that we both know full well no heterosexual is forced to accept access to same-sex unions exclusively should they seek legal protection. You cheapen your ideological ground by denying the other argument, or simply refusing to address the actual issue through banality.
To make it worse, you then preach about listening to people when engaging in discussion.
Well, which is it? At the heart of what I see on this blog thus far, you make arguments that aren’t any more right than the arguments coming from the left. As a matter of fact, I find that most of what your saying in response to what is being said to you is pointless. The demeanor of your text implies utter rigidity, as much as the demeanor of the opposing poster’s texts, like people trying to shoot each other by aiming for the space next to the the persons head. Each shot fired is heard rushing by, but no shots ever hit the other. Even engaging you or your ideological nemeses (at least from my read) seems pointless.
Going back to the original point, my annoyance with your posts is that your posts reek of this “I’m a perfectly rational, consummately educated individual above reproach” attitude while extolling the virtues of allowing yourself to be reproached while talking to others. You slander liberals for not being open to others, while doing the same yourself. It’s not that I think you’re wrong; I know a number of stuffy, fundamentalist liberals in the world who make me want to stick a needle in my eye while I’m speaking with them. It’s that you make the point blind to its real application to yourself. Look, never mind the sides being taken here, because you and I both know neither is going to budge.
Believe it or not, I actually find the advice to allow reproach to be critically important, and your point would have been well received if you’d change your tone and live up to the courage of your well founded advice (convictions, as the saying goes). Considering that the biggest problem in America today is EGO — both Conservative AND Liberal AND Moderate, ALL of whom walk around in a perpetual state of “rightness” beyond introspection, and certainly overly indulgent in denial — I think the advice is quite germane — however ironic coming from someone who routinely shoots down any relevant counter from the other side with such cool, sharp reinforcements of previously made positions. One is left to think that you, well, how did you put it? … “[seem to think] that everyone should respect [your] views, while [you] have no obligation to reciprocate” …
No hard feelings, and getting defensive as though this is an attack on you as a person (such as that rightly directed at Gridlock) is not going to dismiss the advice; if your response digs up old news, well-known views, and lacks hard introspection, I suppose I have just spun my wheels. Here’s to hoping you take the advice with the well-meaning intention it was intended.
Divorce
December 23rd, 2009
2:29 am
Divorce is not favored by anyone but sometimes the situation become so out of control that there is no other option except divorce. It is very tough for both the partners to cope up with the stress and alienation that occurs with this transition.