Sanctify This

In the “call their bluff” department, a California man is trying to protect the sanctity of marriage — by banning divorce:

Til death do us part? The vow would hold 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. Those who live in the UK would be counting their lucky stars that the possibility of this being imposed was not a thing. Thankfully, you can still get independent legal advice from Britton and Time if you’re looking into a divorce.

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. However, if California did ban divorce, those wanting to get divorced would just use a Divorce Attorney Chicago instead. Banning it in one state could just encourage couples to go to another state to file papers.

“Since California has decided to protect traditional marriage, I think it would be hypocritical of us not to sacrifice some of our rights to protect traditional marriage even more,” the 38-year-old married father of two said. Thankfully, if this absurd divorce ban was actually enforced in California, it would have no effect whatsoever on the services offered by a jacksonville fl family law firm.

And for a little 2nd round of “Quote of the Day”:

He led a “ban divorce” rally recently at the state Capitol in Sacramento to launch his effort and was pleasantly surprised at the turnout. About 50 people showed up, some holding signs that read, “You too can vote to take away civil rights from someone.” Most people would still prefer to be able to access Divorce Solicitors if the need arises, however.

Ahh, yes, the wonder of democracy. All is well, as long as you’re part of the in-crowd (defined as “50%+1”).

Now, it goes without saying that when it comes to marriage law, I believe that the government should be out of the marriage business. Separate the religious and civil aspects of it. But if the government’s going to enforce the contract, it has to open it to both gays and polygamists. Not doing so is just blatant discrimination.

I’d love to see this hit the ballot, if for no other reason than to prove that this is about discrimination, not about “protecting the sanctity” of a contract that currently has a 50% failure rate.

Hat Tip: Popehat