Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty Digest™ News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty Digest™ 

California Man Looks To Ban Divorce, Ruffle Conservative Feathers

December 30, 2009 by  

California man looks to ban divorce, ruffle conservative feathersIn an effort to satirize Californians who voted to repeal gay marriage laws to "protect the sanctity of marriage," a Sacramento man has started a petition to outlaw divorce amongst heterosexual couples, the Associated Press (AP) reports.

John Marcotte, a 38-year-old married father of two, believes that if voters feel strongly enough about the conventional institution of marriage, then they should have no issue 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," Marcotte said.

Jeffrey Taylor, a spokesman for Restore Equality 2010, a same-sex marriage advocacy group, said that his coalition supports Marcotte’s actions but will not join forces will him.

"We find it quite hilarious," Taylor said of the petition, quoted the news source.

Marcotte, a comedic website creator who has referred to himself as an "accidental activist," has seen numerous people sign the petition with a genuine interest in preserving marriage.

"It’s a worthwhile conversation to have," said Dan Couvrette, publisher of a divorce-themed magazine. "I don’t think it’s just a frivolous thought."

NBC.com reports that the petition will need approximately 700,000 more signatures by March 22 in order for it to be placed on the ballot.
ADNFCR-1961-ID-19490845-ADNFCR

Filed Under: Conservative Politics, Liberty News
Personal Liberty News Desk

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “California Man Looks To Ban Divorce, Ruffle Conservative Feathers”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Dale, Oklahoma

    With any luck, banning divorce in California would
    drive all of the brainless liberals in the entertainment
    industry out of the country completely. I’m still waiting for
    the actors who promised to move out of the country when Bush
    was re-elected to make good on their promises. But like marriage
    vows, we all know that liberals, celebrities & actors don’t take promises seriously either ( Tiger Woods, et al ).
    Not only should we make divorce much harder, thus forcing couples
    to actually work harder to stay together. We should also consider
    banning so-called common law marriages which also demean the
    sanctity of the marriage vows and religious/legal convictions.

    But if people in the religious/conservative community are truly
    serious about preserving the GOD ordained sanctity of marriage
    by being against so-called “gay” marriage ( I’m even against “gay”
    civil unions too ), then they need to be more vocal, more activist
    in fighting divorce, spousal/child abuse and common law “marriages”
    as well. You can’t simply be against one abomination and not bother
    worrying about the others.

    • Dee Jay

      There use to be laws on the books to get a divorce. You had to have a really good reason to get one. Now, all you have to have is irreconcilable differences or you just can’t stand each other anymore or someone else looks better in a bikini than the spouse.

      There also use to be rules for immigrating to the U.S. but we all know what happened to that; it went by the wayside.

      • denniso

        Dale…what a mindless rant!! ‘liberals don’t take promises seriously’?? Read the news dude…most,though not all, of the men caught in extra marital affairs in the past couple of yrs have been conservative republicans,even preachers. You and your kind want to demonize people(liberals) you don’t like by spreading lies and misinformation.
        A large percentage of people who marry are not religious and YOU don’t get to decide that marriage has anything at all to do w/ religion for those people. You also don’t get to decide what is or isn’t an ‘abomination’. Your mindlessness also clearly illustrates why the ‘founders’ wanted to keep religion out of the public sphere. We have a legal system that deals w/ legal issues and churches for people who want to follow them. Don’t mix the 2,you get poison when you do.

    • Curtis S

      No god ordained my marriage. Does that mean I’m not married? Take religion out of the mix and you won’t get anarchy, you’ll get sanity and a lot more civility too.

    • Rebecca

      If this law did pass, you are going to see more cases like the Laci Peterson situation. If Scott had considered divorce (which is legal and was available to him) Laci might still be alive. I am sure that many, many more men and women chose the divorce path rather than murder. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe that divorce is always the answer nor do I believe that it should be an easy “out”. I am just saying that there are people out there who are alive because they did get a divorce.

  • Al

    Cute but as usual, doesn’t represent a true understanding of what marriage is and what the role of the state is relative to marriage and rights associated with marriage.

    • Joe H.

      Al,
      Pray tell enlighten us poor ignorants on what the meaning of marriage is!!! I’m new at it after 33 years of it, but you will help me at it, I’m sure!!!!

  • http://Yahoo haraldr

    Yes! marriage is Part of GOD’s plan and for a Man and A Woman = husband and Wife, to X this world. No mater our Up’s & Down’s We are steal One , after 31 years.tell death do us part. so be it.

  • SANDRA

    I AGREE THAT MARRIED COUPLES SHOULD BE MADE TO STAY TOGETHER FOR THE
    SAKE OF THE CHILDREN AND THE FAMILY STRUCTURE. IF UNCOMFORTABLE WITH YOUR SPOUSE SIMPLY AGREE AS A COUPLE TO HAVE A OPEN MARRIAGE WITH DISCRETION WHERE BOTH OF YOU CAN SEE OTHERS DISCREETLY OF THE OPPOSITE SEX. BETTER STILL TRY JOINING THE LIFE STYLE TOGETHER AS A COUPLE AND TRY SWAPPING WITH OTHER COUPLES OR DO 3SOMES MALE FEMALLE MALE OR FEMALE MALE FEMALE OR GO TO SOME SWINGERS HOUSE PARTIES OR AN SWINGERS CLUB WHICH ALLOWS ON PREMISE SEX. DOING THESE THINGS WILL ADD SOME ZEST BACK INTO YOUR SEX LIFE AND YOUR MARRIAGE. THESE ALTERNATIVES HAVE WORKED GREAT FOR OUR MARRIAGE AND IN FACT HAVE BROUGHT US CLOSER TOGETHER AS A MARRIED COUPLE.

    • Curtis S

      That’s a very liberal attitude Sandra, I’m not sure the others are going to like your suggestion. It is an interesting solution.

      • SANDRA

        HAPPY NEW YEARS CURTIS S,
        I SAY WHAT EVER WORKS FOR A COUPLE TO MAINTAIN THEIR MARRIAGE IS FINE.
        ESPECIALLY IF IT ADDS MORE EXCITEMENT AND FUN TO AN OTHER WISE DULL RELATIONSHIP.

      • denniso

        You can’t just force people to stay together, unless you want to have a dark ages society ruled by the Taliban, which then opens up all sorts of other possibilities…like husbands beating their wives if they don’t have sex…like women having no vote and unable to own property. The idea is ridiculous and we should laugh the proponents of ‘no divorce’ off the playground.

      • DDC

        Go ahead make my day. Bet you chew on used Condoms for chewing gum. At least your comments say it in every thing you write.

      • denniso

        Boy, what a clever guy you are!! I wonder how you came to such enlightenment and intelligent thinking? Higher education anyone??

    • coal miner

      Sandra,

      You brought up a good point,but what if your mate become permanently attracted to the other mate? You may have a bigger problem than the one you started with.

      • SANDRA

        HAPPY NEW YEARS COAL MINER,
        UNLESS YOU ARE DEDICATED TO EACH OTHER IN THE MARRIAGE & TO KEEPING YOUR FAMILY TOGETHER THEN NATURIALLY THIS WOULD NOT WORK FOR SOME COUPLES. WE HAVE NEVER HAD SUCH A PROBLEM IN OUR MARRIAGE BECAUSE I LOVE MY HUSBAND AS WELL AS HE DOES ME AND NEITHER OF US ARE LOOKING FOR SOME ONE ELSE. IT’S ONLY SEX PHYSICALLY WITH NO EMOTION ATTACHED. SIMPLY PUT IT IS RECREATIONAL SEX.

      • coal miner

        Sandra,

        I never thought of it that way.Different strokes for different folks.If it works for you, than it is allright with me.I think having sexual relations with another person’s mate could save marriages.You not only enjoy the sex,but you get to know that person.I wish we had wife swapping in my day.If you have a boring sex life,it could lead to divorce,mates going out on their spouses usually leads to divorce.But this could be the panacea for boring marriages.YOU Are A NICE LADY! HAPPY NEW YEAR! FROM A SEVENTY NINE YEAR OLD COAL MINER!

      • Joe H.

        Coal minor,
        there you go again, avoiding that idea I talked about before!!! Personal responsibility!!! You libbers hate it with a passion!!! Don’t like the sex? Find different partners instead of talking and working on the problem. Yeah, that’s the way to go!!!! Avoid talking and working on your marriage!!!! That’s the dumbest idea I ever heard!!!!

  • Brad

    Well, let’s outlaw SSM divorce, too, while we’re at it. Those who are so quick to point out the (horrible) hetero divorce rates ignore the even HIGHER divorce rates among SSM’s. Read the executive summary below of a Swedish study. Also rates of SSM divorce in the few states that allow it are staggering.

    SAME-SEX UNIONS AND DIVORCE RISK:
    DATA FROM SWEDEN
    Maggie Gallagher & Joshua K. Baker
    http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/SSdivorcerisk.pdf

    Summary
    A recent study offers the first systematic
    review of same-sex unions and divorce rates
    based on accurate national register data in
    Sweden from the 1990’s.1
    The study found that gay male couples
    were 1.5 times as likely (or 50 percent more
    likely) to divorce as married opposite-sex
    couples, while lesbian couples were 2.67
    times as likely (167 percent more likely) to
    divorce as opposite-sex married couples
    over a similar period of time.2 Even after
    controlling for demographic characteristics
    associated with increased risk of divorce,
    male same-sex couples were 1.35 times as
    likely (35 percent more likely) to divorce,
    and lesbian couples were three times as
    likely (200 percent more likely) to divorce as
    opposite-sex married couples.

    • Bud

      The primary reason was probably that the gay/lesbian couples did not stay together “for the sake of the children,” since there probably are not any children.

      • Brad

        “for the sake of the children”…which is the reason why “marriage” exists. Which is the reason why “marriage” became an institution. Which is the reason why we should not change “marriage” and redefine it as SSM.

  • Joe Berger

    Sorry about the double-post. it got away from me. And sorry about the misquote-”Life Partner” should be “financial Partner”, since it’s not for life.

  • Joe Berger

    I am hetero and married, and religiious. Maybe we DO need to legally re-define “marriage” as a “RELIGIOUS-ONLY Union” between a man and a woman. And drop ALL governmental and legal references and restrictions to ‘marriage’, including tax and other benefits. Then we ALSO need to newly define ‘Financial Partner’, a LEGAL (not religious) joint-venture financial unit lasting as long as the license is renewed. The Life Partner license would require a statement of joint financial responsibility and also the property settlement agreement UP FRONT, signed, sealed and delivered. (I.E. – HARD to get into this union, easy to get out – just fail to renew annually. Take no lawyers to get out, but DOES to get in.) Churches’ rules and procedures would be the only method of getting out of a marriage. A ‘normal’ hetero couple joined in wedlock would need to be get married AND file a Financial Partners license, and renew the Financial partner license every year. A same sex couple could not get married, but could file for Financial partnership, same as anyone else. Could this be a reasonable accomodation which fits everyone’s needs?

    • http://Don'thaveone Sally

      Joe – there are all kinds of alternatives however that is not what they want to hear – The few want to impose their sick sexual perversions on the masses. To what end, I do not know.

    • Curtis S

      So hetero Atheists can’t get married? You need to rework your theory.

      • denniso

        Curtis S…not only couldn’t hetero atheists get married if these guys had their way,they would be locked up or deported to canada.
        Funny, aren’t they…

  • Marie

    I like the idea of giving the rights of marriage to any two people. It doesn’t have to be sexual. Why can’t two maiden aunts have the rights of survivorship, to make medical decisions, share a bank account, etc.? In that regard, I think married people do get unfair benefits. But to change the definition of a word seems silly to me. Can I say I want to be called a hockey player even though I don’t want to play hockey but want to play tennis? I will just call tennis hockey and insist everyone else call my tennis playing hockey. I wil even go to court over it. I mean, they’re both sports. Marriage is specific to one man and one woman, and anyone can choose to marry or not. Even gays can choose to marry. I understand they don’t want to marry someone of the opposite gender, so they do not want to get “married.” Just call it something else. If we’re going to change the definition of a word, then why not be fair to those who want to marry multiple partners or their pet or a plant or…. Should they be excluded because they are an even smaller minority?

    • Bud

      I don’t think most gays who wish to marry would object to calling it something else, so long as all the legal, tax, etc., ramifications were the same.

    • Joe H.

      Marie,
      The Aunts in question CAN have rights of survivor ship it’s called a will. They can be made contest proof also!!! As far as visitation in the hospital, that can be legally arranged before admittance also!!! The whole sob story is bulls..T!!!!

  • pat

    MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN AND MAN AND A WOMAN. A Divorce is between a man and woman.

    • Bud

      Maybe yours is.

  • s c

    Hopefully, Mr. Marcotte knows what he can do with his idea. Aside from the FACT that ‘convenient, quick divorces’ were created to make life simpler for POLITICIANS, there is no justifiable reason to implement Marcotte’s scheme.
    Most people are some kinda STUPID to get married before they’re 25. Marriage is supposed to be a life-long commitment (NOT a revolving door). If you think marriage is like a new batch of clothes that you can buy or get rid of when it’s ‘convenient’ [bubba clinton comes to mind], THEN DON”T GET MARRIED.
    Married folks should be ROLE MODELS. America has all the NON-role models it could ever need, starting with politicians/lawyers, Hollywood types and all manner of sociopaths.

    • Joe H.

      s c,
      I disagree. What about the guy that marries a woman and stays married for say 7-8 years, then comes home one day and starts beating on her? Never touched her like that before. Now it becomes a daily thing. Shouldn’t she be able to divorce before the kids she may have grow up thinking that’s the proper way to live? Give it some thought!

  • Paul Bosco

    It was so nice to read an apology from AndyPG for….. BAD SPELLING!!! Perhaps, after all, there is some hope for civility in our society.

    Andy, it takes a strong man to admit his limitations. I predict that one day you –armed with honesty and self-knowledge– will be an outstanding citizen, orthographically speaking.

    –Paul J. Bosco
    Nwe Yrko Tciy

    Damn. Wiah I could tpye better.

  • mtngem98

    As a gay man I can say that I have no interest in marriage. The institution has been bastardized by the govt. conferring rights to a group of people thereby creating a “special group”. An affront to the constitution. I have taken legal steps to protect my partner and myself fully available to anyone. Remove all of these rights and level the playing field by treating all taxpayers as individuals. Single people unite! We have been discriminated against long enough! Can you say “flat tax” ?

    • Bud

      No, but I can say “Fair Tax”!

      The abomination we have now began as a flat tax.

  • WW

    NatalieR is the no-brainer!! Ironman has an inferiority complex!!! Victor Barney lives in a fantasy world of Lucifers!! And AndyPG and spike need to review their credentials as “law enforcement professionals”!!! Marriage destroying religion??? JulieBme needs to understand marriage is a secular contract allowing for property rights, and has nothing to do about gods or religions!!! Enough said!!

    • http://victorbarney@embarqmail.com Victor L Barney

      So true – - – At least the “civil” part of it!!! Close gets no cigars!

    • http://Don'thaveone Sally

      You are exactly right – it is about property rights which is simple for gays or anyone for that matter and it is called a “WILL” or a “TRUST”. That takes care of everything. I just cannot imagine having sex with another women – PHEW!!!!

      • JC

        Then you have no problem writing my a check for my will / trust and every other expense (increased health care bills,loss of property value through the transfer between non-married partners). All I need is your address and check routing number.

        If you don’t want to pay that then your creating a separate and unequal institution for gays compared to straights, which SCOTUS has declared unconstitutional.

        I’ll also ask the catholic church and the knights of Columbus for their share.

      • Brad

        Will you please cite the case where SCOTUS declared this to be unconstitutional?

      • http://Don'thaveone Sally

        JC obviously you have no idea what a Trust does. We straights have to pay to have a trust set up. You and your partner are both in the trust as a trustee and it takes away the necessity of having a will – none of your property that is owned by the trust which should be everything never goes thru probate nor do you pay any inhertance tax on trusts for the moment anyway – your whole estate etc. is kept in tact and you can name any people you wish to come into and receive benefits. The trust can also own the healthcare plan, can pay your a salary etc., if you have all tings going into the trust. No one can take your house away etc., because it is very hard to sue a trust. I don’t understand why your healthcare is so much more and you do get a break filing single on your taxes, more than filing married. And if you adopt children which I surely hope that you don’t, or your partner does not work, you then become head of household and get a tremendous break. Sounds to me like you don’t have a very good grasp on what can and cannot be done.

      • Bud

        The tax system was not set up to give singles a break. Just the opposite. A Republican Congress attempted to buy votes by allowing married couples to “split” their incomes for tax purposes, on the illusion that each partner “earned” half the income. This permitted a couple earning $100,000 to pay their taxes at a much lower rate, while a single person earning the same amount had to pay at a much higher rate.

        The so-called “marriage penalty” was created by that same illusion, that a married couple is a single entity for tax purposes and must combine their incomes on April 15, thus pushing them into a higher tax bracket. Why cannot each partner file his/her own return and pay at a rate that ANYONE who earns that amount (including singles) will pay, instead of having all these different rates?

        Better yet, why not discard this entire fascist tax system and just go with the Fair Tax?

    • Brad

      Marriage may only be a secular contract for you, but as for me and my house, marriage is an integral religious belief, one that we feel affects our family for the eternities.

    • Bud

      No, marriage is a religious sacrament. Government has no business being in the business of licensing for a religious sacrament. It is not necessary to obtain a government license to receive communion–nor should it be necessary to do so in order to get married.

      Government should be involved only in the “civil union” aspect.

  • ironman56

    Jeffery Taylor, a so called “spokesman” for ‘Restore Equality 2010′, finds it “quite hilarious” what Marcotte is doing. That’s EXACTLY how NORMAL people think about those sexually confused gays trying to change MARRIAGE between a MAN and a WOMAN!! I bet he is lisping and waving his wet limp hand just thinking about the possibility of two naked men together! TISK!!

  • woodbutcher

    If this is what it will take to get people to let gays have the same rights to hospital visits and insurance and social security then OK .I see no reason why a person who works there whole life paying taxes can not designate another to recive thier benifits as is allowed when a man and women are married .Idont understand what the big deal is about 2 poeple who care about each other having the same rights as married couples . I will not be paying taxes until this issue is resolve once and for all . i dont think it is right that my wife could get SS. from me passing away when my neighbors who are a couple are not afforded the same right and why are they not allowed to visit one another in the hospital? they are the only family each of them have they should be able to have some one there for support just because they are not a traditional couple does not meanthat they do not have the same feeling’s and needs that a man and a women have. .Personaly i think this is just about the money and that the govt could care less what people do they just dont want to have to pay out the extra ss.benifits

    • ironman56

      “Wood” butcher///haaa…What a closet HOMOsexual you must be! Are you this “neighbor” you speak of?!

      • denniso

        ironhead….And you most obviously are a bigot…

      • denniso

        I don’t know who DDC is, haven’t seen him here,nevertheless he appears to be another obvious bigot..and he can’t spell. It’s people like him that are true destructive neanderthals that belong in some throwback country like Somalia or Iran where he could have his hand chopped off for mouthing off. Happy new year to the good/sane people!!

      • DDC

        Get to know DDC you (word removed for offensive content). I am your worst NIGHT MARE. Just keep watching, .

      • Joe H.

        DDC,
        did I used to talk to you in the past under a different name on a different site??? If you are who I think you are, welcome!!!!

      • denniso

        DDC…some great languague there tough guy…i’m shaking…And, Joe H,you welcome a moron into your cadre of crackpots, I guess that says more about you then him.

      • DDC

        denniso you need to leave JoeH out of this. Don’t even go there. This Navy Seal would truly be your worst nightmare if ever you where located. You would then know what tough guy is.

        JoeH speaks with common sense, something you don’t have. You need to shut up and listen to some of these people commenting on these news sources that is coming out of Washington. Your mouth needs to be kept close and your ears open. You would then learn something. From all your comments it is plain that you don’t know your arse from a hole in the ground. So shut up, and pay attention, and get educated you drift.

      • Joe H.

        denniso,
        I* would welcome Carter to this site before I would welcome you!!!!

    • http://Don'thaveone Sally

      Gays or Lesbians are an abomination according to the highest authority and should have been left in the closet. I have been married to the same man for 53 years and when he dies I won’t get his social security as I have my own so that is no issue for the gays. In my day an age people got married for life and struggled to make things work – now they try it out by just living together. So many marriages are just because of the money (both ways it’s not just men marrying bimbos, but also the other way around). Quick marriage, then divorse meanwhile counting of the funds and checking out another. However, there is nothing that I can do about the gay situation with their AIDS and spreading it around. Shucks back in my day, you were checked for tuberculosis especially if you were handling foods for public soncumption and if you were found to have the disease, you had to go to a sanitarium until you could no longer infect anyone. AIDS with gays, you can’t even ask them as an employer, they can keep spreading all around and now Obummer has lifted the ban on HIV infected people that they can now come into the states. As I have said in other comments, all is predicted and soon the non believers will be the only ones left on the planet to enjoy the swill that they have created!!! To them, I say good luck as they will surely need it.

      • Joe H.

        Sally,
        this is simple to take care of. Go back to the days when they made you get a blood test to get married!!!! My wife and I did it! I got some little old blind lady with coke bottle glasses that got me 4 times in one arm and 3 in the other before she got my vein!!!! I still went through it!! I love my wife and would go through that and more for her!!! We’ve been married 33 years now and I hope we get 33 more together!!!! Marriage is a sacred thing!!!! I don’t care what denniso says!!!

      • Spence

        Sally,

        Yes the Old Testament certainly says that Gays are an “abomination.” However if you are to take the bible seriously than you have to include among the abominations: people who eat shell fish, those who eat flesh of animals with cloven hoofs that do not chew cuds, adulterers (even worse, they are to be stoned to death). Other interesting items include stoning to death of an unruly son. In the New Testament gluttony is an abomination (part of the seven deadly sins). These are just off the top of my head.. I think there are more that I missed.

  • http://victorbarney@embarqmail.com Victor L Barney

    I LOVE IT! I LOVE IT! I LOVE IT! WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME IN THIS TECHNOLOGICAL AGE??? Seriously, Divorce should be a very, very, very, exceptional thing, if ever!

  • JuliBMe

    All arguments put forth by the left purposefully camouflage the truth. So it makes absolutely no sense to argue with the left based on their false premises. The “medical care” bill just passed by both houses is not about “care” in any sense of the word. It is about control of each and every American life and destruction of the free-market system in the medical and insurance fields. This will destroy the best medical system (not perfect) in the world.

    “Global warming” or “Climate change” is not about the fact that the climate does change and has changed for millions of years. It’s about banning a natural substance, CO2, and calling it a pollutant and controlling it. WE EXHALE CO2. Therefore, it’s about control.

    The “gay marriage” issue is not about gay marriage or discrimination. A gay person can marry any person of the opposite sex they like. That is what marriage is. The attempt to re-define a word is an attempt to destroy religion in America. Once they force “gay marriage” on all the churches in this country, what happens to religion? There is your true premise and your true end-game. It is an attack on the founding of this great country and the TRUE PREMISE is what we need to fight and not get caught up in all the FALSE PREMISES put forth by the left.

    • http://personalitylibertys andypg

      JuliBMe you are right it is all a scam . aganist the freedom and respect for country and GOD

    • http://victorbarney@embarqmail.com Victor L Barney

      GOOD LUCK – - – BECAUSE THAT IT WHAT YOU WILL NEED!!! Not that I do not agree with you, but the “powers” that be have always been the same!!! This is “Lucifer’s world” until the one “chosen” to replace him is revealed! Yes, “the whole world has been deceived”! Another will come in his own “Name” (Lucifer) and he you will believe! People will continue to believe the “lie” by the father of lies in man’s era until they die! Unless they are called-out of this world and made set-apart!

      • Joe H.

        Vic,
        It also says to beware the FALSE PROPHET!!!! That’s why I don’t pay much attention to you!!!

    • Americanadian

      I’m originally from the states, but now call Canada home. Marriage is the ‘legal’ bond between two consenting adults. Here in Canada it’s legal for those two individuals, opposite or same sex. Neither the fabric of the family, marriage, religion, nor anything else of similar matter has suffered or collapsed, due to the marriage issue. It’s just not something that people here in Canada are that concerned about. There are more important issues. We’re more about bringing people together than the opposite.

      About health care…The U.S. is the ONLY developed country in the world that has health care for profit. That’s one reason why it’s so expensive. Canadian health care is excellent. It’s universal, it’s free, and we all get the same great care. I sometimes have to pay for prescriptions, but they’re still less expensive than the U.S. It’s about time that America gets universal health care. Don’t believe the fear mongering by the insurance companies. You can keep or choose whatever doctor you want and you won’t go broke paying for astronomical medical bills.

      Oh yeah, and ban divorce…maybe for the first year.

      • zpunk

        The reason your drugs are so cheap is because the American drug companies are Forced to sell them to Canada at a loss because of international treaties. If they don’t, then your drug companies claim the right to Counterfeit them and sell them there!

      • denniso

        Americanadian..hi from down here and thanks for the rational comment. We don’t seem to want to learn from anybody else on tough issues because we think we are inherently the best and smartest and nobody else knows anything…it’s the kind of ‘non thinking’ that is keeping us so backward and could actually be the cause of our downfall..ironically,the very downfall that the ranters and screamers and haters are predicting,they’re helping bring about w/ their darkages ‘nonthinking’.
        One of the leaders in that regard is in the hospital in serious condition..I don’t wish evil Limbaugh ill, just enough incapacitation to stop his moronic spewing..my new yrs wish.

      • coal miner

        Americanadain,

        I am a retired coal miner.I heard that Canada has a good health care system.Too bad we don’t have it here.I work for years in the coal mines and I had no complaints about health benefits the company gave us.You pay for the bottle and the insurance paid the rest.

      • JuliBMe

        It’s nice you are happy with the socialist Canadian medical system. However, there are too many horror stories reported about waits for cancer treatments to make me very comfortable with a similar system in this country. We are talking about LIVES here. Does the cost really matter that much? The “deficit neutral” statements of our current Marxist government are out and out lies. This will cost much more than our current system and the quality of life for every American will decrease based on the rationing of care that will happen due to those costs. How many of our doctors, after paying for 12 years of schooling, do you think will be willing to become government workers? There are also MANY reports about Canadian with MONEY who cross over to this country to take advantage of our excellent system. When Chappaquidick Teddy was diagnosed with brain cancer, did he run to Canada for their excellent treatment? No, I believe he received the best medical treatment he could pay for.

        The high costs of medical care in this country are also directly a result of the fact that we DO NOT have a completely free market system here. Regulation of competition causes prices to skyrocket. If we had a true free market system, and insurance companies were less fettered with regulations via state to state, prices would decrease dramatically. Or, barring that, eliminating insurance all together (except in the case of a catastrophic circumstance) to allow people to actually see the cost of their day-to-day care by actually paying for it themselves, would encourage shopping around, less frivolous doctor visits, and competition between doctors.

        We haven’t had a completely free market, capitolistic system in this country for over 100 years and still it is the best system on the planet. To blame the problems manufactured by too much regulation and government meddling on a free market system is, again, more liberal/socialist/Marxists lies to deflect the blame from where it belongs. Again, another false premise as I was discussing in my first message.

      • denniso

        JulieB…have you seriously not paid attention to the ‘horror stories’ in the U.S. for the past 10 yrs?? Most personal bankrupticies
        are due to health care costs. We have had soaring med costs along w/ higher salaries for the ins execs for 20 yrs or more. 47 million have NO health ins at all. I know people who have commited suicide because they were diagnosed w/ serious disease and didn’t want to loose all their assets that they hoped to leave to their kids. You people are hung up on a word(socialism) that you don’t even know the definition of or what it actually means. NO society on earth exists w/o some degree of ‘socialism’…police,roads,sewers,transportation,firemen,the military. Quit being used as a pawn by morons like Limbaugh and Savage.

      • Joe H.

        Americanadian,
        Yeah well lucky for us you don’t have a vote so I don’t understand what you are doing here. What we have or don’t have is none of your affair!!!!

      • coal miner

        Joeh,

        Don’t you think that was kind of rude?That silly retort to Americanadain.That is about the level of your cretin mentality.Love America or leave it,the only problem with that,you buy foreign scab goods.

      • Joe H.

        Coal minor,
        and you buy NOTHING foreign made right? Not a thing? The computer you type on is foreign made, the T.V. you watch is foreign made, the car you drive is made up of foreign parts. This country is fast becoming a “service” nation!! You are so backward in your thinking that we will soon only be servicing other nations goods because we have priced ourselves out of the market!!!! Are you so blindly loyal to your stupid unions that you can’t see that? Used to be 70% of the population could afford to buy a new American car. no it’s less than 30%. Get some sense!!!!

      • Joe H.

        Gee I guess you don’t want to answer that one right?

      • denniso

        Joe H…So you don’t think that Americanindian can speak because he/she is from Canada?? Boy oh boy, now that’s what I call believing in the ‘sacred’ constitution. I wonder if I have to live in Joe’s hometown before I can talk? Is Joe afraid to listen to people w/ a different perspective? What are you afraid of Joe?? Information?

  • http://personalitylibertys andypg

    i spell like poop….supportive…..renewal…goes with the above thanks for understanding

  • http://personalitylibertys andypg

    i am for that . we have to keep man and women together for the sake of making new lives to continue the human race…the chocolate shutte
    is not soportive of rewal of human life….where do i sign. andypg1243@aol.com

    • denniso

      I guess you’re joking?? Marriage is an artificial arrangement of relatively modern society..if we need it to keep the human species going,how did it continue and grow before we invented marriage? We have 6.5 million people on earth and a few billion live in dire poverty and we’re still growing,despite divorce being legal in most places…we hardly need marriage to propogate the species as sex is as dominant in humans as ever. Divorce is seldom healthy for the kids involved, but it is preferable to parents fighting and making kids miserable in a bitter marriage.
      For the people fearful that gay marriage will destroy or negatively affect ‘normal marriage’…50% of all marriages end in bitter divorce already and another 50% of the remaing ones are unhappy…’Normal’ marriage is very problematic all by itself w/ no help from any thing else.

      • coal miner

        Denniso,

        You are right.Marriage actually stated with the Romans.The people in the old testament never did get married,they took a wife.

  • spike

    I would gladly vote to allow homosexual marriage and ban divorce if we could at the same time ban any form of adultry by either hetrosexuals or homosexuals. As a law enforcment officer I can certainly say that might cut down on the lewd and lecivious behavior I witness daily in bathrooms at local parks.

    • http://personalitylibertys andypg

      you are 100% right as a correction officer i see and have to supply these perverts.

      • Palin12

        I just want to thank you both for serving your communities!

  • Sam P.

    Bad idea. We do not protect marriage by frivolous statute, but by love. “Husbands, love your wives—”, Ephesians 5:25. You can’t legislate love or trust. And to compel someone, with a legal ball and chain, to remain married even after one or both have “put asunder” their vows of love, trust and fidelity would be an abomination and cruel hell as homosexuality itself. No, no. Albeit, we do not encourage divorce, we need it to protect the ones who mean it from the careless, the liars, the imposters and the frivolous. Legal divorce declares, “Marriage is good; we mean it; don’t ‘mess with it’ or there will be pain and consequences”.

  • Cherry S

    To correct error on 4th line before last, should read: “…are not necessarily given the time or thought…”

  • Cherry S

    I beleive it is a good “idea” but many notions should stay that way. Marriage in itself is symbolic, it is an outward gesture and should not be made into a jail sentence for anyone.
    Why are seemingly intelligent folks agreeing with bargaining with marriage? Why can’t we just allow them to marry or not allow them to marry? Why are we placing ourselves in a more cumbersome situation? Divorce is a diplomatic civil way if we no longer can live together with another person (why marry in the first place?). Just because we marry someone does not mean that “God” has put us together! Many marriages happen for many reasons and are necessarily given the time or thought that should go into them, and further more, people change!
    I think it is a bad idea to use Marriage as a bargaining chip that will back fire for sure.
    If some one cannot get out of a contract legally, then what is the recourse?

    • http://overload74.blogspot.com whisper74

      Marriage is a contract? I thought it was the most holiest of institutions, one which needed the utmost of protection! I’ve been told its more, much more, than a contract. Oh wait a minute: there’s that separation between church and state thing. ;)

      I have no interested in marriage. All I want is for the government to ensure me and my partner have basic rights and protections in times of need. Opposite sex couples have the option to become married and get those protections and oh so much more for the fraction of the cost that other couples must dish out to get basic legal protection.

      • http://Don'thaveone Sally

        What Government protection are you talking about? Maybe I will learn something here that I didn’t know.

      • BOE

        I think what Whisper is talking about are things like health care decisions,property rights and legal matters. My fiance` and I have lived together for 6 years(we are male and female) I have several serious health issues. I do worry if I were to end up on life support with no hope of recovery would my family make it all one big mess or would everyone cooperate and make the right decisions.

      • Joe H.

        Boe,
        don’t you have a “living will”? you should. And they can be made contest proof!!!

  • Natalie R

    What God has joined let no man put asunder! Seems pretty clear to me. And who said that??? Jesus Christ. Yes, I think banning divorce is a no brainer!

    • Rebecca

      And what of the woman with children who is being abused and terrorized daily? Will this woman be able to legally get a divorce? I don’t believe this law can safely be so cut and dried. There are always extenuating circumstances with divorce. I agree that there should be some guidelines in place with regard to divorce such as waiting periods and mandatory family counseling. But to ban divorce all together would put many women and children (and probably a few men) in danger.

  • Natalie R

    LOVE it.. I would vote YES, ban divorse the GREATEST threat to marriage and the family unless Californians allow gay marriage the NO threat to marriage. Divorce is HUGE and it devastates families. VOTE YES to ban divorce!!!

    • Dee Jay

      I think we have more important things to concern ourselves with than who gets divorced or can’t get married to their male friend or her with her girl friend.

      I personally think there would be more murders than there already are. If married people HAVE to stay married, no matter what, then same sex people can not get out of their relationship.

      Now, me, I have just celebrated my 40th Anniversary with my male husband and I am female. HAPPY NEW YEAR!

    • Joe H.

      Natalie R.
      Yes, by all means, make the woman that’s being beaten 3-4 times a week stay with the animal she’s married to!!! Even worse, make the kids that are being abused by their father stay with him cause the mother can’t get a divorce!!! Great idea!!! Way to think!

      • Brisk

        Yah right like every women is being beaten . Stop the extreme nonsence, focus on the 99.99 percent of marrages out there where no person is being beaten.

blog comments powered by Disqus

All Categories

Bottom