Defense of Marriage Act

A new initiative has been certified in California further protecting the institution of marriage. Would you support this new defense of marriage act?

Are they defending the right to get divorced? Wait, if they were "protecting" the institution of marriage, I guess divorce wouldn't be allowed anymore, right?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #9
A new initiative has been certified in California further protecting the institution of marriage. Would you support this new defense of marriage act?

Are they defending the right to get divorced? Wait, if they were "protecting" the institution of marriage, I guess divorce wouldn't be allowed anymore, right?

Bingo! It will outlaw divorce in California.
This I understand, how preventing gay and lesbian couples from marrying as a means to protect the instituton of marriage never made sense. This does.
 
do you have a link....and btw....DOMA, defense of marriage act, is a federal act....i don't see why CA would do anything since amending their constitution
 
A new initiative has been certified in California further protecting the institution of marriage. Would you support this new defense of marriage act?

Are they defending the right to get divorced? Wait, if they were "protecting" the institution of marriage, I guess divorce wouldn't be allowed anymore, right?

Exactly, if they are protecting the sanctity of marriage, then they have to fight for the right to not allow divorces...

Lets see how that plays out.
 
Last edited:
I don't have a link, on the local news it was reported that the Secretary of State of California certified an inititative to make divorce illegal. An initiative amends the State constitution.
Now the person, I didn't get the name, needs to get signatures to qualify for the ballot.
He, or she, obviously has a great sense of humor and in doing so makes a mockery of the initiative process. A process which has been abused in California for years. Originally, a product of the progressive era (c. 1900) and thought of as 'direct democracy' it has been used by special interests to pursue narrow agendas.
 
I don't have a link, on the local news it was reported that the Secretary of State of California certified an inititative to make divorce illegal. An initiative amends the State constitution.
Now the person, I didn't get the name, needs to get signatures to qualify for the ballot.
He, or she, obviously has a great sense of humor and in doing so makes a mockery of the initiative process. A process which has been abused in California for years. Originally, a product of the progressive era (c. 1900) and thought of as 'direct democracy' it has been used by special interests to pursue narrow agendas.

In that case, I have no comment to make. Call me sceptical, but you are not necessarily the most factually accurate of posters so unless there's a link, I'll pass.
 
I don't have a link, on the local news it was reported that the Secretary of State of California certified an inititative to make divorce illegal. An initiative amends the State constitution.
Now the person, I didn't get the name, needs to get signatures to qualify for the ballot.
He, or she, obviously has a great sense of humor and in doing so makes a mockery of the initiative process. A process which has been abused in California for years. Originally, a product of the progressive era (c. 1900) and thought of as 'direct democracy' it has been used by special interests to pursue narrow agendas.

In that case, I have no comment to make. Call me sceptical, but you are not necessarily the most factually accurate of posters so unless there's a link, I'll pass.

As you wish dwiddle d.
 
Stupid initiative, if Dogbert's is the one of which you speak. First, it is unenforceable. People will simply step into Nevada to complete the divorce.

And for the record, although, I am against "gay marriage" as many of you already know, I am for civil unions for everyone in order to get the government out of the religious rite of marriage. A church or religious institution that deems homosexual marriage acceptable should be allowed to marry homosexuals, but the state should get out of the marriage business completely and leave the rite of Holy Matrimony to the churches.

Immie
 
there is no need to protect marriage

unless you want to only protect a certain kind of marriage.

I fail to understand the issue here.

All law abiding, contributing, productive members of a society should be granted the same rights, benefits and privileges as any other member of that society. Period.
 

Forum List

Back
Top