Proposition H8

[Tube Socks Dude]

You did it California. You protected marriage and children with Prop 8. But you can't stop there. You must continue to protect marriage and children. Therefore, you should sign the following State Proposition that Prohibits Divorce Between Heterosexual Married Couples:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYvsEdfuaUQ​

Divorce destroys the sanctity of marriage and its powerful influence on the betterment of society. This proposition would keep the very meaning of marriage from being transformed into nothing more than a contractual relationship between two adults. Prohibiting divorce between heterosexual married couples will keep the interests of children and families intact. We will continue to celebrate marriage as the union of husband and wife, not as a relationship between "Party A" and "Party B." The marriage of a man and a woman has been at the heart of society since the beginning of time and it promotes the ideal opportunity for children to be raised by a mother and a father in a family held together by the legal, communal, and spiritual bonds of marriage. As a society we should put the best interests of children first, and those interests lie in traditional marriage. Permitting divorce destroys marriage as we know it and causes a profound harm to society. We should be restoring marriage, not undermining it.

This petition is copied and pasted from literature from the website, ProtectMarriage.com, but applied to Divorce instead of Gay Marriage.

Why aren't you applying your own words to yourselves about mothers and fathers being held together by a legal bond in the interest of children by outlawing divorce? Proposition H8 was never about protecting children. It was about protecting symbols of Mormon, Catholic and Biblicist religious authority. You were trying to save the sanctity of patricarchal and Biblical dominance over society. Outlaw divorce and shacking up and put your lifestyle where your mouth is. Hypocrites.
.
.

 

[wiggsfly]

Proposition H8 was never about protecting children. It was about protecting symbols of Mormon, Catholic and Biblicist religious authority.

Exactly

 

[Im_A]

You did it California. You protected marriage and children with Prop 8. But you can't stop there. You must continue to protect marriage and children. Therefore, you should sign the following State Proposition that Prohibits Divorce Between Heterosexual Married Couples:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYvsEdfuaUQ​

Divorce destroys the sanctity of marriage and its powerful influence on the betterment of society. This proposition would keep the very meaning of marriage from being transformed into nothing more than a contractual relationship between two adults. Prohibiting divorce between heterosexual married couples will keep the interests of children and families intact. We will continue to celebrate marriage as the union of husband and wife, not as a relationship between "Party A" and "Party B." The marriage of a man and a woman has been at the heart of society since the beginning of time and it promotes the ideal opportunity for children to be raised by a mother and a father in a family held together by the legal, communal, and spiritual bonds of marriage. As a society we should put the best interests of children first, and those interests lie in traditional marriage. Permitting divorce destroys marriage as we know it and causes a profound harm to society. We should be restoring marriage, not undermining it.

This petition is copied and pasted from literature from the website, ProtectMarriage.com, but applied to Divorce instead of Gay Marriage.

Why aren't you applying your own words to yourselves about mothers and fathers being held together by a legal bond in the interest of children by outlawing divorce? Proposition H8 was never about protecting children. It was about protecting symbols of Mormon, Catholic and Biblicist religious authority. You were trying to save the sanctity of patricarchal and Biblical dominance over society. Outlaw divorce and shacking up and put your lifestyle where your mouth is. Hypocrites.
.
.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Please don't give overly religious people any idea's,I could picture the overly religious people trying to get this voted in.Anyway I cant see prop 8 not being thrown out.
I just hope the Churches or people involve stop waisting money for their cause.I do see your point though.

 

[geekgirlkelli]

Proposition 8 will be overturned. It's only a matter of time. It may take going all the way to the Supreme Court to rule that marriage is a civil, not a religous matter and the basis for all those who oppose same gender marriage seems to be based on religion.

Anyway, great thoughts. Yes, they are hypocrites.

 

[Tube Socks Dude]

Here are pictures of yesterday's "Join the Impact" rallies from across the country.

http://marriage.towleroad.com/pics/

I am especially proud of Alabama. Thank you to the heterosexuals, both Christian and non-Christian, whatever your ethnic background, who believe in equality.

 

[Zeo]

Please don't give overly religious people any idea's,I could picture the overly religious people trying to get this voted in.Anyway I cant see prop 8 not being thrown out.
I just hope the Churches or people involve stop waisting money for their cause.I do see your point though.

A large portion of divorced couples are evangelicals.

I can't see why they'd want to vote for something that would limit their own freedoms. Only other people's.

 

[Tinkerbell222222]

Here are pictures of yesterday's "Join the Impact" rallies from across the country.

http://marriage.towleroad.com/pics/

I am especially proud of Alabama. Thank you to the heterosexuals, both Christian and non-Christian, whatever your ethnic background, who believe in equality.

Yes! Thank you to everyone who participated. As an Arizona girl now living in Massachusetts for college....I was thrilled by the turnout in both states.

 

[Jessica Lauren]

I love it!

 

[Apollo Celestio]

Divine Judgment! Both ways!

 

[Atlantians]

You did it California. You protected marriage and children with Prop 8. But you can't stop there. You must continue to protect marriage and children. Therefore, you should sign the following State Proposition that Prohibits Divorce Between Heterosexual Married Couples:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYvsEdfuaUQ​

Divorce destroys the sanctity of marriage and its powerful influence on the betterment of society. This proposition would keep the very meaning of marriage from being transformed into nothing more than a contractual relationship between two adults. Prohibiting divorce between heterosexual married couples will keep the interests of children and families intact. We will continue to celebrate marriage as the union of husband and wife, not as a relationship between "Party A" and "Party B." The marriage of a man and a woman has been at the heart of society since the beginning of time and it promotes the ideal opportunity for children to be raised by a mother and a father in a family held together by the legal, communal, and spiritual bonds of marriage. As a society we should put the best interests of children first, and those interests lie in traditional marriage. Permitting divorce destroys marriage as we know it and causes a profound harm to society. We should be restoring marriage, not undermining it.

This petition is copied and pasted from literature from the website, ProtectMarriage.com, but applied to Divorce instead of Gay Marriage.

Why aren't you applying your own words to yourselves about mothers and fathers being held together by a legal bond in the interest of children by outlawing divorce? Proposition H8 was never about protecting children. It was about protecting symbols of Mormon, Catholic and Biblicist religious authority. You were trying to save the sanctity of patricarchal and Biblical dominance over society. Outlaw divorce and shacking up and put your lifestyle where your mouth is. Hypocrites.
.
.

Actually I would support banning divorce, with a healthy exception clause for adultery or endangerment. The difference is that it is impossible to implement, unfortunately. So I reject your shallow accusations of 'hypocrisy'.

 

[DeanM]

Actually I would support banning divorce, with a healthy exception clause for adultery or endangerment. The difference is that it is impossible to implement, unfortunately. So I reject your shallow accusations of 'hypocrisy'.

With no malice intended, would it make sense to allow gay marriage as a "healthy exception" in the case of say . . . adoption?

That, in my mind, would lessen the view of hypocrisy, since there would be a level playing field.

Both scenarios would have a similar "healthy exception."

Just curious.

BTW, I'm not advocating this by any means. I support gay marriage. I'm just trying to see where you might draw the line.

 

[Im_A]

Actually I would support banning divorce, with a healthy exception clause for adultery or endangerment. The difference is that it is impossible to implement, unfortunately. So I reject your shallow accusations of 'hypocrisy'.

you would support banning divorce under what reason? now i'm not for divorce for whatever reason one wants to, but there are more justified reasons to divorce than endangerment or adultery.

and i don't see how TSD accusation as shallow by any means. so many people believe homosexuality is wrong, vile or whatever "clever"[sarcasm] adjective they want to use because they say it breaks the sancitity of marriage but yet the majority of people against homosexuality believe it is ok to divorce for this or that reason. if one is going to go blatantly in one direction to protect something, they must go at all areas to protect whatever they feel needs protecting. the fact that most don't, shows nothing but a pathetic sign of hypocrisy. he's just stating the facts as far as i'm concerned.

 

[Atlantians]

With no malice intended, would it make sense to allow gay marriage as a "healthy exception" in the case of say . . . adoption?

No. It is definitionally invalid.

Divorce dissolves a marriage. It doesn't change the fundamental institution.

Allowing the dissolution of a marriage in certain circumstances is a lot different than allowing homosexuals to declare themselves married.

 

[Atlantians]

you would support banning divorce under what reason?

Under the reason of demanding actual commitment reinforced by the states angry arm.

now i'm not for divorce for whatever reason one wants to, but there are more justified reasons to divorce than endangerment or adultery.

There are better reasons to divorce than betraying your spouse or assaulting your spouse?

 

[Yardstick]

Actually I would support banning divorce, with a healthy exception clause for adultery or endangerment. The difference is that it is impossible to implement, unfortunately. So I reject your shallow accusations of 'hypocrisy'.

Part of the reason divorce rates have skyrocketed is do to it being easier to get divorced. Historically it was much more difficult to get divorced.

 

[Tube Socks Dude]

if one is going to go blatantly in one direction to protect something, they must go at all areas to protect whatever they feel needs protecting. the fact that most don't, shows nothing but a pathetic sign of hypocrisy.

Ultimately what the Mormon and Catholic Churches feel the need to protect is the privilege of a male-only priesthood. When women and gays start doing what they want to with their own bodies, androcentrism comes crumbling down. That scares androcentric Calvinists and Puritans just as much as it does the Mormon and Catholic hierarchies.

 

[Atlantians]

Part of the reason divorce rates have skyrocketed is do to it being easier to get divorced. Historically it was much more difficult to get divorced.

Indeed! And I support much greater restrictions on Divorces.

A contract is a contract is a contract. But only between Ferengi.