December 1, 2009 3:16 AM

Movement to Ban Divorce Grows in Calif.

(AP)  Til death do us part? The vow would really hold true 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.

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.

"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," the 38-year-old married father of two said.

Marcotte said he has collected dozens of signatures, including one from his wife of seven years. The initiative's Facebook fans have swelled to more than 11,000. Volunteers that include gay activists and members of a local comedy troupe have signed on to help.

Marcotte is looking into whether he can gather signatures online, as proponents are doing for another proposed 2010 initiative to repeal the gay marriage ban. But the odds are stacked against a campaign funded primarily by the sale of $12 T-shirts featuring bride and groom stick figures chained at the wrists.

Marcotte needs 694,354 valid signatures by March 22, a high hurdle in a state where the typical petition drive costs millions of dollars. Even if his proposed constitutional amendment made next year's ballot, it's not clear how voters would react.

Nationwide, about half of all marriages end in divorce.

Not surprisingly, Marcotte's campaign to make divorce in California illegal has divided those involved in last year's campaign for and against Proposition 8.

As much as everyone would like to see fewer divorces, making it illegal would be "impractical," said Ron Prentice, the executive director of the California Family Council who led a coalition of religious and conservative groups to qualify Proposition 8.

No other state bans divorce, and only a few countries, including the Philippines and Malta, do. The Roman Catholic Church also prohibits divorce but allows annulments. The California proposal would amend the state constitution to eliminate the ability of married couples to get divorced while allowing married couples to seek an annulment.

Prentice said proponents of traditional marriage only seek to strengthen the one man-one woman union.

"That's where our intention begins and ends," he said.

Jeffrey Taylor, a spokesman for Restore Equality 2010, a coalition of same-sex marriage activists seeking to repeal Proposition 8, said the coalition supports Marcotte's message but has no plans to join forces with him.

"We find it quite hilarious," Taylor said of the initiative.

Marcotte, who runs the comedy site BadMouth.net in his spare time, said he has received support from across the political spectrum. In addition to encouragement from gay marriage advocates, he has been interviewed by American Family Association, a Mississippi-based organization that contributed to last year's Yes on 8 campaign.

He was mentioned by Keith Olbermann on MSNBC's "Countdown" during his "World's Best Persons" segment for giving supporters of Proposition 8 their "comeuppance in California."

Marcotte, who is Catholic and voted against Proposition 8, views himself as an accidental activist. A registered Democrat, 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."

Marcotte stopped dozens of people during another signature drive in downtown Sacramento. Among them was Ryan Platt, 32, who said he signed the petition in support of his lesbian sister, even though he thinks it would be overturned if voters approved it.

"Even if by some miracle this did pass, it would never stand up to the federal government," Platt said. "And if it did, there's something really wrong with America."

Other petition signers said they were motivated by a sincere interest to preserve marriages. One was Ervin Hulton, a 47-year-old dishwasher who said he believes in making it harder for couples to separate.

"The way I feel, why go out and spend all these tons of money for marriage, the photography and all that? And along down the line, it's going to shatter," said Hulton, who is single.

The U.S. divorce rate is 47.9 percent, according to data provided by the National Center for Health Statistics reports. That figure, however, does not include California, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana and Minnesota because those six states no longer report their divorce rates to the center.

California stopped because of budget problems, said Ralph Montano, a spokesman for the California Department of Public Health.

While most people would not support banning divorce, it does make sense for couples to be educated about the financial and emotional commitments of marriage, said Dan Couvrette, chief executive and publisher of Toronto-based Divorce Magazine. The publication has a circulation of 140,000, including a regional edition in Southern California.

"It's a worthwhile conversation to have," said Couvrette, who started the magazine in 1996 after going through his own divorce. "I don't think it's just a frivolous thought."

© 2009 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Add a Comment See all 177 Comments
by black_howler July 19, 2010 11:32 PM EDT
God said divorce is a sin. It's time to preserve the institution of marriage once and for all and ban divorce. All religious people should be supporting the word of God and Jesus.
Reply to this comment
by nomi-varla December 4, 2009 1:03 AM EST
Please, let's not make this a straight-versus-gay battle. If you read the article carefully, you'll notice that its subject, John Marcotte, is married to a woman. I am straight, and was raised by my married mother and father in a traditional household. And I cried when Proposition 8 was passed because I understand the basic difference between right and wrong.
Ever notice that the dictionary gets re-printed every year? So do encyclopedias, history textbooks, and legal books. Every now and then, even a new version of the Bible comes out. And of course, laws are often ammended. This is because language evolves, as does human society and our understanding of facts. Why should this not apply to the word "marriage"? To defend the "traditional" understanding of a word simply because it is the way it has always been makes no sense. The meaning of "marriage" has constantly undergone change throughout human history. This is natural and inevitable, and should be embraced. To restrict the definition of marriage to include some but not all of those who want to spend their lives with the person they love is just plain wrong in every way. I am a heterosexual woman, I firmly believe that choosing a spouse should not be straight-biased, and I believe that I am not in the minority. Here in Canada, there is a small organization called Hetersexuals for Same Sex Equality (http://straightnotnarrow.ca/our_history.html) whose slogan is "straight but not narrow". The outrage against Prop 8 shouldn't be directed against straights, but rather at the bigots and cowards who can only feel secure in themselves by taking freedom of choice away from others.
I mean, really, haven't we gotten over "banning" things by now?
Reply to this comment
by cameraphone December 2, 2009 12:05 AM EST
Ban Divorce in California!!!!!!!!
Reply to this comment
by uswarrior December 1, 2009 5:48 PM EST
Gays, you need to stop messing with marriage. You do not have the right to mess with another group's traditions. Straights have the right to keep their traditional "marriage". It is a straight, Christian tradition, and the God of the Christians, who invented marriage, says it's between a man and a woman. You gays need to do your own thing and call it your own thing and stop pushing your lifestyle down the throats of those who don't like it. Go create your own traditions.
Reply to this comment
by slownewsday-5 December 1, 2009 5:51 PM EST
You don't seem to understand that your church and its beliefs don't matter one bit in this issue.

We're discussing a government-issued license, and that's all.


.
by slownewsday-5 December 1, 2009 4:12 PM EST
"slownewsday-5 December 1, 2009 2:02 PM EST


And once again, I'm betting that's the same argument you'd make against blacks and women when the laws discriminated against them.

Everyone who practices a legal sexuality should have that right, Rob.

Otherwise, it's discrimination, as we've been discussing. And if you'd deny people that right based on their sexuality, it's the same as doing so based on race or gender.

Are you capable of not making circular arguments?

----
by endurorob_5
And you keep missing the point that if everyone is required to follow the same rules or laws there is no discrimination. It's very easy to understand."



So that would be "no", you aren't capable of escaping your own circular argument.


.
Reply to this comment
by bann65 December 1, 2009 4:01 PM EST
If people would be INTELLIGENT enough to stay married, we wouldn't have these unstable people that come from broken homes. Most people that are mentally-ill or in prison, come from broken homes!There's either no father, or evil stepparents. who abused them. Learn how to live right, people!
Reply to this comment
by AOCGUY December 1, 2009 4:40 PM EST
do you have some credible facts to back up your statement?
by omded December 1, 2009 3:44 PM EST
In light of this delightful development, I must now put on my "Jesus Robes" and quote from "Holy Scripture".

Ahem..."What God has joined together, let no man put asunder." (Jesus Christ, circa 0 A.D.)

You see, if we're going to get into the business of having the Great State of California recognize religious laws, I think we should recognize ALL religious laws - not just the ones we select. So, according to Jesus Himself, we must likewise ban divorce.

All Hail the Holy One.

Amen

P.S.: We will begin stoning adulterers do death tomorrow morning at 8:00 AM. If you can raise enough cash to bribe your local bishop, you can still have an annulment. So says The Shepard.
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-17 December 1, 2009 3:25 PM EST
by hungry1968-17 December 1, 2009 2:48 PM EST
Okay Rob - I give in.

Please post the "rule" or "law", that says that gays can't marry.

I'll wait, while you PROVE that such a law exists.






You're apparently having a tough time finding the law that says people of the same sex CANNOT marry.

He's a link to the state of California's marriage laws:

http://www.cdph.ca.gov/CERTLIC/BIRTHDEATHMAR/Pages/MarriageLicenseInformation.aspx




That should help you find the law that DOES NOT EXIST, even though you insist it does.

I'll wait.
Reply to this comment
by misands December 1, 2009 3:25 PM EST
I think this is a great idea, but it should be focused on ending the so-called 'no fault' divorces! It may have started off as a joke, but divorce is out of control, and this is really a good idea. If people really are so concerned about the sanctity of marriage, then this is really a logical step. It's funny to read so many straight people who were screaming about the "sanctity of marriage" squirm about this. At least this will highlight the hypocrisy and bigotry of so many straights.
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-17 December 1, 2009 2:36 PM EST
by endurorob_5 December 1, 2009 2:26 PM EST

You obviously do not understand what discrimination is.






discrimination:

1. treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice.

2. unfair treatment of a person, racial group, minority, etc.; action based on prejudice



Nailed it perfectly, huh?
Reply to this comment
by endurorob_5 December 1, 2009 2:41 PM EST
But if everyone is being treated the same and is required to follow the same rules how can the treatment be unfair?
by hungry1968-17 December 1, 2009 2:46 PM EST
They ARE NOT being treated the same.

Heterosexuals can be married, and the state will recognize their marriage.

Homosexuals can be married, and the state will NOT recognize their marriage.

How do you figure that is "the same"?

You're just pretending to be intentionally ignorant, because NO ONE is as stupid as you're pretending to be.
See all 4 Replies
See all 177 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook