No Divorce in California

[Brovane]

Well looks like somebody is trying to get a initiviate in the ballot in CA to ban divorce in CA.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/pr...ases/2009/db09-063.pdf

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. (09-0026.)

Cannot find out who is backing this. I suspect that it might be some liberal group trying to make the pro Prop-8 sancitity of marriage people look like the hyprocites that they actually are. The bible talks more about divorce that it does homosexuality. It will be interesting if this gets on the ballot and we can watch the religious right squirm.

 

[Moonbeam]

Where's the death by stones for infidelity?

 

[Corporate Thug]

even if it gets on the ballot, there is no chance it will pass. And even if it does, it will be overturned the CA Supreme.

 

[Brovane]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Where's the death by stones for infidelity?

Just wait for Phase 2. We need to protect marriage.

 

[Rike]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Where's the death by stones for infidelity?

"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

I hate when anyone trys to legislate their morality. It never works.

 

[BarrySotero]

Originally posted by: Brovane
The bible talks more about divorce that it does homosexuality.

It also talks more about divorce than bestiality. Some things don't need a lot of explanation

 

[Cuda1447]

Sounds like a pretty ridiculous bill.

 

[Jaskalas]

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.

Why be involved in the first place?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Rike

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Where's the death by stones for infidelity?

"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

I hate when anyone trys to legislate their morality. It never works.

Legislating morality is great. Laws against immoral murder, theft, rape.

It's legislating personal preferences/specific religious rules that's an issue.

Some might equate the religious text and morality. In that case, for Christians, the bible says the penalty for rape away from home is a fine and marrying the woman, IIRC. OK?

Jesus didn't spend a lot of time lobbying the government for criminalizing wrngs. Religion guides people's morality, but they should make a distinction since this is not a throcracy.

 

[JSt0rm]

I think all the gays in Cali should vote for this one. If the majority of people wanted the sanctity of marriage protected then lets protect it

 

[LunarRay]

I agree the proposed Amendment probably does ride inconsistent with the US Constitution's implied "pursuit of happiness"... ehhehehehhe

I don't like our (California's) No Fault Divorce laws as they are now... We really need to have fault in stuff... who can we point to if there is no fault to argue about..

We can go about our pursuit of happiness and not worry about her filing for divorce and getting our assets... heheheheheheh I love it... but alas, I'm too old to take advantage of the opportunities... dang, it takes me all night now to do what I used to do all night!...

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero

Originally posted by: Brovane
The bible talks more about divorce that it does homosexuality.

It also talks more about divorce than bestiality. Some things don't need a lot of explanation

:roll:

 

[waggy]

good. we must protect marriage. we can't do that with people allowed to divorce.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Rike

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Where's the death by stones for infidelity?

"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

I hate when anyone trys to legislate their morality. It never works.

Legislating morality is great. Laws against immoral murder, theft, rape.

It's legislating personal preferences/specific religious rules that's an issue.

Some might equate the religious text and morality. In that case, for Christians, the bible says the penalty for rape away from home is a fine and marrying the woman, IIRC. OK?

Jesus didn't spend a lot of time lobbying the government for criminalizing wrngs. Religion guides people's morality, but they should make a distinction since this is not a throcracy.

I can't believe it, but we agree.

Suppose this were to pass. This would be incredibly destructive to the institution of marriage.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Rike

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Where's the death by stones for infidelity?

"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

I hate when anyone trys to legislate their morality. It never works.

Legislating morality is great. Laws against immoral murder, theft, rape.

It's legislating personal preferences/specific religious rules that's an issue.

Some might equate the religious text and morality. In that case, for Christians, the bible says the penalty for rape away from home is a fine and marrying the woman, IIRC. OK?

Jesus didn't spend a lot of time lobbying the government for criminalizing wrngs. Religion guides people's morality, but they should make a distinction since this is not a throcracy.

I can't believe it, but we agree.

Suppose this were to pass. This would be incredibly destructive to the institution of marriage.

And that would be a good thing.
Government shouldn't be in the marriage business.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Suppose this were to pass. This would be incredibly destructive to the institution of marriage.

not as destructive as gay people getting married bleh. I'm voting for this.

 

[bfdd]

I will be voting yes on this because I don't think the government should have anything to do with marriage.

 

[TruePaige]

Hah, after the whole Prop 8 thing, this is funny!

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Rike

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Where's the death by stones for infidelity?

"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

I hate when anyone trys to legislate their morality. It never works.

Legislating morality is great. Laws against immoral murder, theft, rape.

It's legislating personal preferences/specific religious rules that's an issue.

Some might equate the religious text and morality. In that case, for Christians, the bible says the penalty for rape away from home is a fine and marrying the woman, IIRC. OK?

Jesus didn't spend a lot of time lobbying the government for criminalizing wrngs. Religion guides people's morality, but they should make a distinction since this is not a throcracy.

Legislating morality is flawed.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: Brovane
Well looks like somebody is trying to get a initiviate in the ballot in CA to ban divorce in CA.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/pr...ases/2009/db09-063.pdf

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. (09-0026.)

Cannot find out who is backing this. I suspect that it might be some liberal group trying to make the pro Prop-8 sancitity of marriage people look like the hyprocites that they actually are. The bible talks more about divorce that it does homosexuality. It will be interesting if this gets on the ballot and we can watch the religious right squirm.

Religious right here. I think the gov should get the fvck out of marriage and issue adult beneficiary licenses to any two people over 18 who apply for them for any reason, without regard to romantic status, dissoluble at any time for any reason. Let the churches worry about marriage and divorce (and I'm 1000x more concerned with the religious impact of divorce than I am about homosexuality one way or another.)

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Rike

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Where's the death by stones for infidelity?

"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

I hate when anyone trys to legislate their morality. It never works.

Legislating morality is great. Laws against immoral murder, theft, rape.

It's legislating personal preferences/specific religious rules that's an issue.

Some might equate the religious text and morality. In that case, for Christians, the bible says the penalty for rape away from home is a fine and marrying the woman, IIRC. OK?

Jesus didn't spend a lot of time lobbying the government for criminalizing wrngs. Religion guides people's morality, but they should make a distinction since this is not a throcracy.

Legislating morality is not great. Legislation should only be applied to stabilize society, regardless of the moral impact. Morality will never be agreed upon between groups, religious or not, and should never be the basis of any legislation. We outlaw murder, theft, rape etc because it upsets the balance of society, not because it's immoral.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Rike

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Where's the death by stones for infidelity?

"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

I hate when anyone trys to legislate their morality. It never works.

Legislating morality is great. Laws against immoral murder, theft, rape.

It's legislating personal preferences/specific religious rules that's an issue.

Some might equate the religious text and morality. In that case, for Christians, the bible says the penalty for rape away from home is a fine and marrying the woman, IIRC. OK?

Jesus didn't spend a lot of time lobbying the government for criminalizing wrngs. Religion guides people's morality, but they should make a distinction since this is not a throcracy.

Legislating morality is not great. Legislation should only be applied to stabilize society, regardless of the moral impact. Morality will never be agreed upon between groups, religious or not, and should never be the basis of any legislation. We outlaw murder, theft, rape etc because it upsets the balance of society, not because it's immoral.

Oh brother, you're kidding me, right?

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Rike

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Where's the death by stones for infidelity?

"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

I hate when anyone trys to legislate their morality. It never works.

Legislating morality is great. Laws against immoral murder, theft, rape.

It's legislating personal preferences/specific religious rules that's an issue.

Some might equate the religious text and morality. In that case, for Christians, the bible says the penalty for rape away from home is a fine and marrying the woman, IIRC. OK?

Jesus didn't spend a lot of time lobbying the government for criminalizing wrngs. Religion guides people's morality, but they should make a distinction since this is not a throcracy.

Legislating morality is not great. Legislation should only be applied to stabilize society, regardless of the moral impact. Morality will never be agreed upon between groups, religious or not, and should never be the basis of any legislation. We outlaw murder, theft, rape etc because it upsets the balance of society, not because it's immoral.

:thumbsup:

 

[jackschmittusa]

They should only pass this if they also allow learner's permits for marriage where you practice being married for 6 months, then opt for and pass a test that shows that you and marriage are compatible.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Rike

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Where's the death by stones for infidelity?

"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

I hate when anyone trys to legislate their morality. It never works.

Legislating morality is great. Laws against immoral murder, theft, rape.

It's legislating personal preferences/specific religious rules that's an issue.

Some might equate the religious text and morality. In that case, for Christians, the bible says the penalty for rape away from home is a fine and marrying the woman, IIRC. OK?

Jesus didn't spend a lot of time lobbying the government for criminalizing wrngs. Religion guides people's morality, but they should make a distinction since this is not a throcracy.

Legislating morality is not great. Legislation should only be applied to stabilize society, regardless of the moral impact. Morality will never be agreed upon between groups, religious or not, and should never be the basis of any legislation. We outlaw murder, theft, rape etc because it upsets the balance of society, not because it's immoral.

Oh brother, you're kidding me, right?

I'm not saying it's moral, just saying that the immorality is not the reason that we legislate around it (or at least, should not be.) Otherwise you open the door for strict legislation around things like adultery, pre-marital sex, cussing, whatever anybody considers to be "immoral".