Yes, we would.
Posted on 11/13/2009 10:10:22 AM PST by Responsibility2nd
A California man wants divorce outlawed.
John Marcotte has filed for a ballot initiative to protect traditional marriage in the state of California as an extension of the work related to Proposition 8, the voter-approved constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. In essence, Marcotte's project would legally ban divorce.
"Marriage is an important and sacred institution, and I'm just trying to safeguard it in really the most direct way possible," he states.
He says he needs the help of California's registered voters in acquiring "700,000 valid signatures, which likely translates into 1,000,000 [signatures] total." He further reports that he only has about five months to gather that support for the 2010 California Marriage Protection Act.
(Excerpt) Read more at onenewsnow.com ...
Love is a growing, or full constant light, And his short minute, after noon, is night.
Not much room for human error in your black and white world is their?
Biggest effect of outlawing divorce would be to make live-in couples and illegitimacy the norm. People who are married tend to work a lot harder at making a relationship work than cohabiting couples, which is much better if their are children involved. However, you aren’t leaving much of a way out for people in a marriage that is utterly beyond redemption, short of murder or spousal abandonment....
"And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh."Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery." (Matthew 19:3-9)
The Catholic Church echoes our Lord in its teaching on marriage and divorce:
Adultery, divorce, polygamy, and free union are grave offenses against the dignity of marriage. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 6, SubSection 4, Heading 3)In his preaching Jesus unequivocally taught the original meaning of the union of man and woman as the Creator willed it from the beginning permission given by Moses to divorce one's wife was a concession to the hardness of hearts. The matrimonial union of man and woman is indissoluble: God himself has determined it "what therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 2, Section 2, Chapter 3, Article 7, Heading 5)
Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 6, SubSection 4, Heading 2)
It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 6, SubSection 4, Heading 2)
The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.
If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 6, SubSection 4, Heading 2)
Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:
If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another's husband to herself.(Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 6, SubSection 4, Heading 2)
Divorce is evil. Divorce laws in each state should be rewritten to end no-fault divorces and revert the grounds for divorce to the status quo ante 1975.
“Stupid.”
It is California. :-)
This will lead to a jump in the murder rate.
a fool in paradise has already posted - several times - this idea. See replies upthread.
And I don’t know. Don’t care actually. The basic idea - the basic premise is a sound one.
Who cares who the messenger is.
I wouldn’t ban divorce - and also I think this guy has a different agenda here.
I would however, have no problem with getting rid of “no fault” divorce. THAT has made divorce so much more easier and a cavalier option.
I would also list things like adultery and abandonment to once again be valid fault reasons for divorce.
See post 47.
Right, NO FAULT DIVORCE poses a problem.
And adultery is a violation of the terms of marriage (a legal proceeding). But it was decriminalized.
Then don’t take the vows. The vows I took said that it was for life.
This is absolutely ridiculous and hey bub, get out of my life!
Anyone who thinks this is going to PRESERVE the American family has lost it. All this will do is make people have children out of wedlock, which doesn’t do much for preserving the family either.
The public humiliation and shame of having a child out of wedlock is not here anymore, so there is no shame in shacking up and having four or five ‘baby daddy’s, so how is keeping people who might be happier divorced without the guy who 15 years into the marraige decides he wants to run around and give you STDs? Not to mention the spouse abused by a newly addicted drug addict (and responsible for their debt?) or an abusive alcoholic.
Sorry, but you cannot bond family by laws. It begins with society and social morals.
Actually - I agree with you. (post 47) Rather than attempt the impossible (ban divorce), we should enact things that make it harder to divorce.
And - as I’ve said - TAX the bejesus out of those who divorce. Better yet - Increase the tax benefits and tax credits to those who STAY married.
Abortion (instead of Baptism)
Fornication (instead of Confirmation)
The Pursuit of Pleasure (instead of Penance)
Euthaniasia (Instead of the Anointing of the Sick / "Last Rites")
The Accumulation of Power (instead of the taking of Holy Orders)
Divorce and Remarriage (instead of Matrimony)
Fortunately, the Enemy has no counter for the Sacrament of the Eucharist. In hoc signo vinces.
Sorry, but you cannot bond family by laws. It begins with society and social morals.
________________________________
A totally ridiculous statement if ever I heard one.
Our existing laws (Thank you LBJ!) have dramatically DEBONDED the family. It’s time to restore the laws America once had. Before feminists took control with no-fault divorces.
>>Not much room for human error in your black and white world is their?(sic)<<
Actually, it depends on how you look at it. I remember a certain army winning because their captain burned their ships. There is room for human error: it’s called accountability.
Getting married should be seen as jumping out of a plane with a parachute. And if something goes wrong, even due to human error, well, you suffer the consequences. The difference is that it is ordained by God.
The good news is that if you screwed up, the consequences only last a single lifetime, which the bible describes as a very short time indeed. It is still best to consider it seriously before one does it.
>>However, you aren’t leaving much of a way out for people in a marriage that is utterly beyond redemption, short of murder or spousal abandonment....<<
What out did God leave?
I don’t agree. It won’t help and it is not going to happen.
I was divorced once and I paid my own attorney. The taxpayers didn’t pay for it.
Do you think it is a good idea if people stay together if someone is getting beat up?
Don’t you love it when supposeded “conservatives” start advocating for more government involvement in peoples lives. On top of that they want to further tax people whose behavior they don’t like. You’d think I was on a liberal web site.
Yes, we would.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.