Ban divorce? Ballot effort gets OK to gather signatures

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen today authorized the backer of an initiative that would ban divorce to begin collecting signatures to put the proposed constitutional amendment before voters.

John Marcotte now has until March 22, 2010, to collect 694,354 signatures of registered voters in order to get the measure on the ballot next year. The proposal would change the California Constitution to "eliminate the ability of married couples to get divorced in California."

Couples could still get their marriages annulled under the proposal.

Here is the official text of the initiative:

ELIMINATES THE LAW ALLOWING MARRIED COUPLES TO DIVORCE. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the ability of married couples to get divorced in California. Preserves the ability of married couples to seek an annulment. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Savings to the state of up to hundreds of millions of dollars annually for support of the court system due to the elimination of divorce proceedings.

--Jessica Garrison

Comments

[Matthew James]

Every church in California should back this proposed proposition. Marriage is sacred. Remember?

[G Weiss]

No Lawyers abusing spouses and children!
Too Good To Be True!!
Just maybe there is a G_D!

ANNULMENT - A legal decree that states that a marriage was never valid. Has the legal effect of wiping out a marriage as though it never existed.

[Matthew James]

It will be interesting to see if conservative groups and church organizations will support this measure. Looks like a pretty good way to protect the sanctity of marriage.

[Richard Ivey]

It's about time.

[Rumpole Bailey]

This change to the state constitution is OUTSTANDING.

Banning divorce reinforces "traditional" marriage. Those that voted "yes" for Prop 8 - those who believe in "traditional" marriage and the sanctity of marriage - should also turn out in droves for this change to our constitution. If you really believe that a marriage is sacred, you'll want to protect marriage in all ways - not just those that are most convenient.

[EFFFY]

Yes, let's do this! Protect MARRIAGE!

[Aaron Daniels]

Why doesn't this current bit of stupidity surprise me? Instead of looking at the excesses in government, some idiot proposes a scheme that won't help anything in the financial situation in the People's Republik of Kalifornia. Instead of going after divorces, why doesn't Bowen look at the waste in the unnecessary social programs that have really bankrupted the state hundreds of times over? But then, that would be too logical and too intelligent and the state legislature wouldn't understand it. The reason being that the socialist mental state of the legislature just can't grasp the fact that all of their social programs and pork spending is the REAL cause of the state's financial problems.

[Mens Rights Activist]

Wow, this is great! Different than my own proposal, but lets go.

[RambleonGirl]

Finally! maybe now people will take marriage seriously in California. A husband or wife is not like a new pair of pants, once they get a little worn you toss them out.I'm no saint because I'm divorced and it caused me a great deal of pain. I was young and had tunnel vision. If there was a law in place to ban divorce before I got married I would have really looked closely at the relationship and realized it was not strong enough to withhold a long term marriage.

I think a law like this will make people really thing over what they are deciding. Love is a great thing but when the honeymoon is over the new lighting over the relationship can really suck. Less children will be raised in broken homes and I just think overall people will take the sacrament of marriage so much more seriously...as it was originally intended.

[Rex Howen]

Undoubtedly, the coalitions that came together to save marriage in California (Yes on Prop 8) will wholeheartedly be in support of this ballot initiative. Any other position would be in direct oppostion to their stated goals of protecting marriage and the family unit.

[Gary]

If the "right" have their way, this will be the norm. Standby more to come.

[SAM]

This is absurd. What we should do is have EVERY couple negotiate a pre-nup agreement BEFORE they get married, setting the terms of a possible divorce (child custody, support and visitation, division of assets, alimony, et al.) on the front end. Those negotiations would be so eye-opening to both parties that they'd either enter the marriage with a realistic view of who they're marrying, or they'd be sad -- yet grateful -- that they avoided making a big mistake. That would reduce the divorce rate better than inflicting the tyrannic yoke of law enforcement on already-miserable people. Mr. Taliban -- uh, er, Marcotte -- should go to jail for wasting so much of his time on the notion that the government can engineer people's passions and desires. How's that Drug War goin'?

[Thomas]

Who in the world is behind this insane initiative. The initiative process is out of control.

[kvk1111]

Gee, I wonder if the Prop 8 proponents will rally behind this? I think not. If they believe marriage between a man and woman is so sacred they would.

[steven]

yes, protect marriage!

[Not Crazy]

What a joke. Let's spend our time and money on global warming or something collective. Live and let live - you Nut cases

[Hairy Carrion]

Swell. This stinks of theocracy.

Why don't they just ban marriage for everyone, instead? Or better yet, just put everyone in prison.

Really freakin' stupid.

[Irving Leemon]

The proposed ban on divorce in this state is totally wrong headed. I guess the Catholic Church will never stop trying to re make the government of this country in its own image.. The Church does such a great job of looking out for human rights and dignity. We don't have to look any further then Mexico and countries South of there. O, I almost forgot the "religious" zealots who claim to be Christians and believe in the teachings of their god, but, unlike Him, are not forgiving, tolerant, or understanding of other people's beliefs.

[Eddie Tucker]

Probably the same bunch that complains about government interference in personal liberties. Idiots.

[rsbear]

Gets my vote. We need to "protect" marriage. If straight people won't let gay people get married because it "hurts" marriage, then straight people getting divorced certainly hurts marriage. Only seems fair.

[Debbie]

What is up with California? Have we socially regressed back into the 1950's?

[Nick]

I know all the Mormon's and Catholics will be rushing to sign this petition. I mean... they do say they want to protect marriage. Right Mormons/Catholics? And with savings in the hundreds of millions fiscal conservatives should be excited to support this amendment as well. Why should everyone who successfully manages their marriage have to pay for those who can't keep it together. Personal responsibility!!!!

[Ken]

Go for it. No skin off my nose. In fact, it will protect me, since divorce financially punishes men who earn more than their wives, which is MOST.

Whether or not there is divorce in no way changes the fact that marriage unites a bride and a groom, and anything else is not marriage, no matter what state licenses are issued.

[MJ]

god bless this man..fight the good fight sir!

[SB]

I think this very dangerous. What about women in abusive marriages - to make it illegal for them to get a divorce is very troubling.