California Initiative Proposes Abolishing All Marriage from Law

LifeSiteNews ^ | 3/11/09 | Kathleen Gilbert

[qwertypie]

Judging by the raw statistics, I’d say that formal lifetime marriage is a dying deal anyway. More than half end in divorce, and a good percentage of the remaining one are less than blissful, according to my personal observations.

It almost takes being a stuntman to want to get married...

[Secret Agent Man]

Yeah, like all the real married people will go along with this.

[Chode]

they hate themselves so much, that they will try to kill marriage unless they can pervert it to their own liking, that along with the Church. they will burn in hellfire for this.

[goldstategop]

If they can't destroy marriage by redefining its meaning, they want to take it away from us as revenge. Real brilliant move on the part of the Queerly Beloved!

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[biff]

Will these damn queers ever stop?

[lucias_clay]

Since marriage is a sacrament of the Church in reality its not the states role to define it anyway.

[fwdude]

... eliminating all types of marriage was unlikely to gain broad public support and called it "fundamentally a dumb idea."

That has to the the understatement of the century.

[Marie]

I don’t buy that stat about 50% ending on divorce.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe that half of all marriages don’t make it, but the implication is that half of all *first* marriages are doomed.

My own mother had three husbands. So that’s three first-time marriages by other people that make it so the statistic balances out. (Two of her ex-husbands each had three failed marriages, as well.)

My MIL and FIL are both on their second marriages. So they keep the numbers level.

My neighbor’s on hubby #5. So there’s 5 first-time marriages who “death til they part”.

There are many who’s first marriages fail and who never try again. That means that for every one of them, there’s a marriage that goes the distance.

Many, MANY people don’t get it right the first time, but do the second. (Older, wiser, more experienced, make a better choice for a mate, etc) They, too, keep the numbers at the 50% mark and end up very happy.

The odds of a first marriage making it is much better than implied by the statistic.

[Marie]

Since marriage is a sacrament of the Church in reality its not the states role to define it anyway.

I hate to admit it, but I agree with you.

A part of me would be just fine with this bill, but another part of me is screaming a warning that this will continue the undermining of the institution of marriage... possibly pushing it off a cliff.

There's something about saying, "I'd like you to meet my husband," that, "I'd like you to meet my domestic partner," just doesn't do.

[I got the rope]

No it doesn’t belong in the realm of the state, but the state should support it.

The reason is because the family is man’s first government. This is where we begin to respect authority. The state should strongly support it, not promote anarchy.

[libh8er]

These Califags are out of control.

[annalex]

Yes. If it passes, a bright line will be drawn between serious Catholics who live by their religion first, and by the laws of the state incidentally. That would be good for Catholicism and by the same token, good for all fundamentalist (small “f”: the Eastern Orthodox, conservative Protestant, Muslim, orthodox Jews) religions.

However, it is horrible public policy and should be opposed by anyone who wants to preserve the American system of civil government. Along with Roe v. Wade, that will be another change in the American jurisprudence that delegitimizes the government.

[NYer]

Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

[Ransomed]

Exactly. Nobody is any more or less married because gubberment says so. I don’t think gubberment involvement in marriage has been very good for the ol’ institution at all. Like most things where gubberment gets involved, it will eventually mess up and put forth impossibilities like “gay mariage”.

Freegards

[tioga]

if they can’t make the rules there will be NO rules.....

[Nowhere Man]

The bad news is that the queers are doing this to support their agenda. IMHO, there is a seriously silver lining to this dark cloud.

Yeah, there is a libertarian side of me that perhaps the government should stay out of regulating marriage, leave it up to the churches and other religious institutions and/or common law. Still in my mind and heart, a marriage is between a man and a woman. The only other "bright side" is that least this is the more honest way to change the law my using the process that is using the standard legal process to change, amended, get rid of or make the law instead of using judicial fiat to thrust it upon us. Open it up to debate and let the legislators pass or fail it as it may be. The proponents of homosexual marriage have every right to go about and change the law through the standard process as we do preserving it and if they want something then this is the way they should do it. It is like Sgt. Joe Friday said in one "Dragnet 1967" episode, if you don't like a certain law, "work within the system to change it." I doubt this will pass but at least this is the more honest way to do it. I'm not for it of course, but I'm just saying this is the process on how we change and amend laws.

[Nowhere Man]

Will these damn queers ever stop?

Well, it's like I said, this is the way laws are changed or amended but if they lose and fail to get it passed, then they should take their ball and bat and go home for a while but I doubt it will stop them if they fail in their efforts here.

[freedomwarrior998]

I don’t buy that stat about 50% ending on divorce.

You shouldn't.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/divorce.htm