Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

'2010 California Marriage Protection Act' initiative filed; would outlaw nearly all divorces

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Newsjock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 09:59 PM
Original message
'2010 California Marriage Protection Act' initiative filed; would outlaw nearly all divorces
Edited on Fri Sep-04-09 10:09 PM by Newsjock
http://ag.ca.gov/initiatives/activeindex.php?active=A
09-0026
Submitted for Title and Summary on September 01, 2009.
"2010 California Marriage Protection Act."

PDF link here: http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i823_...

SECTION 1. Title. This act shall be known as the "2010 California Marriage Protection 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.


Relevant section of the Family Code: http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/code/getcode.html?file=...

2210. A marriage is voidable and may be adjudged a nullity if any
of the following conditions existed at the time of the marriage:
(a) The party who commences the proceeding or on whose behalf the
proceeding is commenced was without the capability of consenting to
the marriage as provided in Section 301 or 302, unless, after
attaining the age of consent, the party for any time freely cohabited
with the other as husband and wife.
(b) The husband or wife of either party was living and the
marriage with that husband or wife was then in force and that husband
or wife (1) was absent and not known to the party commencing the
proceeding to be living for a period of five successive years
immediately preceding the subsequent marriage for which the judgment
of nullity is sought or (2) was generally reputed or believed by the
party commencing the proceeding to be dead at the time the subsequent
marriage was contracted.
(c) Either party was of unsound mind, unless the party of unsound
mind, after coming to reason, freely cohabited with the other as
husband and wife.
(d) The consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless the
party whose consent was obtained by fraud afterwards, with full
knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with
the other as husband or wife.
(e) The consent of either party was obtained by force, unless the
party whose consent was obtained by force afterwards freely cohabited
with the other as husband or wife.
(f) Either party was, at the time of marriage, physically
incapable of entering into the marriage state, and that incapacity
continues, and appears to be incurable.

2211. A proceeding to obtain a judgment of nullity of marriage, for
causes set forth in Section 2210, must be commenced within the
periods and by the parties, as follows:
(a) For causes mentioned in subdivision (a) of Section 2210, by
any of the following:
(1) The party to the marriage who was married under the age of
legal consent, within four years after arriving at the age of
consent.
(2) A parent, guardian, conservator, or other person having charge
of the underaged male or female, at any time before the married
minor has arrived at the age of legal consent.
(b) For causes mentioned in subdivision (b) of Section 2210, by
either of the following:
(1) Either party during the life of the other.
(2) The former husband or wife.
(c) For causes mentioned in subdivision (c) of Section 2210, by
the party injured, or by a relative or conservator of the party of
unsound mind, at any time before the death of either party.
(d) For causes mentioned in subdivision (d) of Section 2210, by
the party whose consent was obtained by fraud, within four years
after the discovery of the facts constituting the fraud.
(e) For causes mentioned in subdivision (e) of Section 2210, by
the party whose consent was obtained by force, within four years
after the marriage.
(f) For causes mentioned in subdivision (f) of Section 2210, by
the injured party, within four years after the marriage.

2212. (a) The effect of a judgment of nullity of marriage is to
restore the parties to the status of unmarried persons.
(b) A judgment of nullity of marriage is conclusive only as to the
parties to the proceeding and those claiming under them.

On edit: Initiative filed but not yet cleared for signature gathering. I misread the instructions on the AG's page.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
1. No way that could be constitutional..is it even REAL?
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 10:03 PM
Response to Original message
2. IS this a response to Prop 8?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #2
16. No. As I said in my post #7, this is the theocrats' next attempt to impose a Christian Sharia Law
They are lunatics. It's not solely about the gays -- it's about their religious world-view and their conviction that God talks to them.

They are lunatics, but they have a lot of money behind them. Go to theocracywatch.org for some real thrills'n'chills.

Hekate

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DebbieCDC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 10:08 PM
Response to Original message
3. Apparently some whackjob(s) in CA have gathered enough signatures to get this on the November ballot
Edited on Fri Sep-04-09 10:11 PM by DebbieCDC
It's a ballot initiative. Some crackpot(s) think that even IF this gets approved by a majority of voters, it will survive a court challenge. It seems they may have gotten enough valid signatures to get it on the ballot. The wackos are crawling out of the woodwork.

We get these loony things all the time here in Washington State, most of them started by a former watch salesman turned "professional initiative creator" named Tim Eyeman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xithras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #3
42. It doesn't even have signatures.
They've merely filed the paper and paid the $200. They still have to get the signatures and qualify it before the act will be allowed anywhere near a ballot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SheilaT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 10:08 PM
Response to Original message
4. Well, some of us have been saying for years
that if the conservatives are truly worried about defending marriage, then divorce should be a whole lot more difficult to obtain.

What exactly do you mean that it has been cleared for signatures? Has the California State Legislature actually passed that silliness?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Citizen initiatives get put on the ballot-- that's how we got Proposition 8. But first ...
... they have to pass a number of hurdles: collect a certain number of signatures in petition (it helps if you have someone bankrolling you so you can hire people to collect the sigs), have the language approved by the Secretary of State (I'm pretty sure that's who has to look it over), and ultimately it can go on the ballot.

This marriage stuff is sheer lunacy. You think it was just about gays? Not at all. These are theocrats, and nothing will satisfy them but the Christian equivalent of Sharia Law.

Hekate

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hipnerd Donating Member (2 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #7
43. Absolutely correct
I could actually use help getting signatures, if you're interested.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xicano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #7
47. I've looked into California's ballot initiative process for possibly getting marijuana legalization
And here's what one has to do. Here's a link to California's Secretary of State guide on the process of ballot initiatives.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/initiative_guide.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notesdev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 10:40 PM
Response to Original message
5. might have some merit
It would sure make people think long and hard before making what should be a lifelong commitment. Easy divorce sure didn't help children any.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ikonoklast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #5
6.  Neither does two people living together 'for the sake of the children'.
Yeah, let's force people that stopped loving one another to live together, that's the ticket.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notesdev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. The option is not so cut and dry
once there are children involved.

The whole point of respecting marriage as an institution in the first place is because it protects children.

There is real and lasting damage to children of broken marriages - significantly more damage, in general, than to children of loveless marriages.

I'm not saying I got the answers here, just saying that I don't think the well-being of children should be a non-factor, as it is today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. When children are grown divorce should be allowed.
Edited on Fri Sep-04-09 10:52 PM by tabatha
And some marriages are so bad, that there should be divorce for the sake of the children.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 02:40 AM
Response to Reply #10
20. divorce 'should be allowed'??!
I can't believe I'm even reading shit like this here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 03:43 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. I'm stunned.
Edited on Sat Sep-05-09 03:46 AM by SemiCharmedQuark
My mother left my father when I was two because he was an abusive drunk. But it doesn't even matter *why* she left him. It's her life and her choice and she did what she thought was best for us and that is the only thing that matters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. Sorry, the run-on sentence countered that.
I should have expressed that better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #20
39. No kidding right?!
:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dogtown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #20
49. Seriously, Matariki!
Some of these comments are medieval, and sound curiously like Dogma.

Divorce should no more be disallowed than marriage should be.

Courts should have NO say in divorce other than dissolving the legal contract and dividing the spoils.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr Generic Other Donating Member (362 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #8
17. actually i believe that much of the "damage" to children
during and after a divorce is the result of gender specific, economic inequality.
divorced women, with children living at home' often live in poverty and being poor in america is truly destructive. everything in our society and economy is geared to make life harder for the poor, to blame the poor for their own poverty and to despise them for being the burdens they are. we have so successfully vilified the poor that even the poor in america hate the poor. this is destructive.
many children from broken homes or who become orphaned grow to be perfectly healthy, well-balanced individuals. children need love, direction, food and shelter. it doesn't have to come from biological parents.
if we lived in communities that cared for each of their members (universal health care, well supported public schools, public utilities that insured access to water and power, sponsored an economy that did not require two adults to work full-time to support their families, etc.) having the support of two, live-in parents would not matter as much as it does in the dog-eat-dog world we have created.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notesdev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 02:22 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. I'm not sure about the gender specific part
but on your main point, I agree. I don't know if you've seen Elizabeth Warren's presentation on how the economy is now geared towards 2-earner families, but if you haven't, it's quite an eye opener:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr Generic Other Donating Member (362 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. thank you for the link.
i have not seen this yet but soon will remedy that.
it is my personal analysis that our economy is still largely a plantation model economy. different cash crops but workers, like other resources, are to be used for profit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dogtown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #8
48. That's, like, just your opinion, Man.
And it is a very flawed opinion, discounting the hatred and violence that often ensues in forced marriages.

It's naive, at best.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. It will probably make more people terrified of marriage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tyedyeto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 01:56 AM
Response to Reply #5
18. Merit?
So, even with young children, and your spouse is screwing around with someone else.... no divorce for you? Or there is spousal or child abuse in the home? No divorce??? Healthier for the children for the parents to stay together?

Give me a fucking break, I'm not staying in a marriage that is doomed because of one or more factors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
armyowalgreens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #5
37. Coming from divorced parents, I can say with confidence that you don't know...
what you are talking about.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ikonoklast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. As the sole custodian of three children, I KNOW he doesn't have a clue.
The court agreed with me to remove my ex-wife from anything to do with raising my children. After they turned eighteen, it was up to them if they wanted to have anything to do with her.

If I was forced to have been married to her, I would have taken the kids and fled the state.

Marraige is sometimes the *worst* situation kids are forced to live under.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
11. That is awesome!
I suggested that at DU during the Prop H8 fight, so glad others thought of it too. Brilliant!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. agreed time that HETEROSEXUALS got effed over by moral purists n crackpots. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. + 1 nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beyurslf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 11:32 PM
Response to Original message
13. I actually think divorce should be banned. It is the only real threat to marriage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dogtown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #13
50. So, she dumped you, right?
RUNN OFT, as it were. Must have been lookin' fer answers...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-04-09 11:40 PM
Response to Original message
14. Maybe this will finally wake straight people up
cause this sucker's aimed right at them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #14
35. Sadly, some here don't see the brilliance of the initiative.
The one thing that Proposition 8 taught me is how INSECURE heterosexuals are about their marriages. That's all we heard. The "institution of marriage" is on the brink. OMG!

Well, here's a chance for the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church to really kick in their money this time to really do something to "save heterosexual marriages".

Let's see how all of the churchy hypocrites that wail and gnash their teeth about "saving marriage" react to this. Of course, we already know how they will react, don't we?

They never believed that heterosexual marriages were truly threatened by the two elderly lesbians living together on the corner of their street the past 35 years. Of course not!

They don't give a shit about saving marriages, they just wanted to discriminate against gay people and preserve their privilege to do so legally. Hence, Proposition 8.

This will only expose their hypocrisy when they don't get on board with money and passion. Their silence will scream.

Save Marriage! On with the initiative. Where can I sign up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 02:42 AM
Response to Original message
21. This is an effert to confuse voters at the ballot with a 2010 Prop 8 repeal
Make no mistake they want something so bad everyone will just vote no on both props stopping a repeal of prop 8 that will need a yes vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
windoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
25. Some people want to create Hell on Earth.
Their dream of this world is a freakshow, a nightmare, and based on fairy tales, not the ways of this world.

What this is proposing is repression and a denial of civil rights, so ideally it should not be given the dignity of consideration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 06:41 PM
Response to Original message
26. Maybe the fundies are counting on conservative Calfornians and angry gays to vote yes
It's cynical and nasty. And scary as hell. And whose money is behind this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 06:43 PM
Response to Original message
27. "Initiative filed but not yet cleared for signature gathering." OK, We'll watch this one.
I'd still like to know who is behind it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abumbyanyothername Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
28. Marcotte's politics seems left leaning
The guy who filed the petition seems left leaning.

http://www.badmouth.net/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hipnerd Donating Member (2 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. I resent that
I resent the implication that I am left-leaning or somehow less than sincere. I simply want to accomplish in a single sentence what Prop 8 utterly failed to do -- "protect traditional marriage" in the most effective way possible.

Jesus was quite clear that getting divorced was a sin:

The Gospel of Mark, Chapter 10

9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.
10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.
11 He answered, Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.
12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.
He didn't mention being gay once -- probably a clerical oversight.

I would think this is a cause that even secular progressives could get behind. I wasn't quite ready to unveil the initiative yet, but you have forced my hand a bit. I've created a Web site that hopefully will clarify the goals of the 2010 California Protection of Marriage Act.

http://rescuemarriage.org

Think of the children.

John Marcotte
Defender of Matrimony
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pangolin2 Donating Member (560 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #30
36. Yeah, Jebus, the son of Gawd was plagued by clerical oversights.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #30
38. Good luck with that...
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #30
51. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
29. In California of all places
No way will that pass! :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
31. OK the theocrats have gone completely off the deep end with this one.
Makes you wonder what they have in store next. :yoiks:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aint_no_life_nowhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
32. Maybe this will encourage people to keep "living in sin" and not marry too easily
and to think twice about entering an irreversible marriage. Maybe they should rename it the "Promotion of Unwed Sexual Intercourse Act".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
33. Wow...that one ain't gonna fly...
..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RidinMyDonkey Donating Member (290 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
34. Holy crap
That's fucking scary. Why would they even care who gets divorced? I mean really, this is absurd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
41. So the Death of Marriage Act?
Or as my father would have labeled it "The Shacking Up Act."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Philly_Bluntz Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
44. You do realize...
That this is designed to show how ridiculous the Fundies are in attacking gay marriage. You're all getting worked up over something that isn't even serious, but is directed at the people that we are fighting against.

The author of every post's profile is as follows:

'John Marcotte is a proud Christian and firm believer in traditional marriage. He has a loving wife and two beautiful children. He currently opposes "socialized medicine," MSNBC's entire prime-time line-up and extending domestic-partner benefits to Bert and Ernie.'

Bert and Ernie? Really?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
45. Funny, but it will never get enough signatures to get on the ballot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Echo In Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
46. This perverse empire never fails to astonish
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 24th 2014, 04:27 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC