Marriage Protection Act

Klautermauffen

F-f-f-f-f-f-f-founderrr
Founder
Mar 11, 2008
3,846
26
68
32
Seattle
Interview with John Marcotte, Author of the 2010 California Protection of Marriage Act


In early September, I heard Sacramento's own John Marcotte had filed a petition with the California Secratary of State.
John is trying to get a voter's initiative onto the 2010 ballot here in California.
We spoke on September 9th.



Rob Cockerham: John Marcotte. You've filed a petition with the Secretary of State, in an effort to get a voter's initative on the California 2010 ballot.
John Marcotte: Yes. Filed the paperwork on September 1. It's the "2010 California Marriage Protection Act." I am trying to ban divorce in the state of California.
RC: Ok. So your act, if it became law, would make marriage undissolvable.
John: Exactly. The only exception would be if the marriage was "voidable" -- if you married an 8-year-old, you don't get to keep her. She goes back on the shelf. You can't marry the mentally incapacitated, etc.
RC: Ah, ok, so most normal marriages would be irreversable.
John: 99.99% of all marriages would be set in stone. It's a return to traditional values.
RC: Wow, that is amazing. Could it really happen? What steps remain to make this initiative into a valid, enforced law?
John: I am trying to extend the good work done with Proposition 8 last year. It could really happen. The United States has not always had divorce as an institution the way we do now. As a ballot initiative it bypasses the legislature and the governor. It's the will of the people made law.
RC: How long has divorce been around?
John: As a concept, pretty much forever, but in the past, divorces were at the very least difficult to get and frowned upon by society. Now they pass them out like Tic-Tacs.
RC: Who is providing the bulk of funding for this initiative?
John: It began as a self-funded initiative, but we've been collecting donations and already recouped a fair percentage of the filing fees. We hope to collect more donations and maybe start selling t-shirts, etc. to raise more funds.
RC: Are you going to hit the streets collecting signatures for the initiative?
John: We're going to set up a table in front of Wal*Mart and ask people to sign a petition to protect traditional marriage. We're going to interview them about why they thing traditional marriage is important, and then we'll tell them that we are trying to ban divorce.
People who supported Prop 8 weren't trying to take rights away from gays, they just wanted to protect traditional marriage. That's why I'm confident that they will support this initiative, even though this time it will be their rights that are diminished. To not support it would be hypocritical.
We're also going to collect signatures in front of "Faces," the largest gay nightclub in Sacramento.
RC: Can gay and unmarried people sign the petition to make this California Law?
John: Anyone can sign the petition as long as they are a registered voter in California. Sinners signatures work just as well as saints.
That brings up and interesting point. We are a Christian nation.
Jesus said, "What God has put together, let no man separate." Divorce is a sin.
Fun fact: Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality. Probably some sort of clerical oversight that will be rectified in the end of days...
RC: I think about half of the 10 commandments are against the law in California. Are you trying to increase that percentage?
John: Being gay is a sin, but it didn't even make the "top 10." I can't covet my neighbor's wife...that's close, but it doesn't hit the nail on the head.
RC: This initiative does seem like it would "Protect Marriage", but if two people decide to not be married anymore, shouldn't they be in charge of their own lives?
John: Sometimes other people need to sacrifice in order to protect my ideas about traditional marriage. It's just a fact of life. It's not about their soul-sucking sham of a marriage, it's about what we value as a society. We live in a divorce-promiscuous society. It's on the television, it's in movies, the newspapers. It's even in our kids textbooks.
I'm Catholic. In my religion, divorce is a sin -- completely impermissable.
RC: Sounds like you'd like to shield kids from learning too much about divorce.
John: I don't want the government teaching my child is "cool" or "legally permisable." That's a conversation that should happen in the family. It's the parents' role to teach the kids about reality -- not the state's.
RC: well, this is a bold step. Do you think you face a strong opposition?
John: The opposition will always be there. The secular progressives, gays and MSNBC hosts -- but we beat them once with Prop 8 and we'll beat them again. If people are thinking about getting a divorce, just remember "Hell is eternal, just like your marriage was supposed to be." Jesus still loves you if you get divorced, just not as much as before.
RC: What about people who are currently married? Will this law apply to them, or only new marriages?

John: I wish that I could force people that hate each other with the intensity of a thousand white suns back into a loveless marriage, but my attorneys tell me that getting that law passed would be unlikely in the current political climate.
I'll try to get a "win" by banning divorce and save that for 2012 -- when Sarah Palin will be president and/or the end of the world will occur.

RC: Its good to have a plan.

John: One step at a time. We can return this country back to it's proud, traditional Judeo-Christian roots.
RC: Thank you. We are almost done, and I appreciate you typing your responses.
John: No worries.

Thank you.
John's website is rescuemarriage.org
 

Negativecool

Gold Member
Founder
May 30, 2008
2,359
43
78
39
Internet
Ha. Harvard published an ad saying the holocaust never happened.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/09/09/massachusetts.harvard.holocaust/index.html
I don't get this addition to the thread, so now I don't know what to comment on.

To the marriage thing:
1) This guy doesn't know dick about marriage, just some confused ideal he learned about and, in a chronic fit of ignorance and naivety, became passionate about this ideal.
2) This guys' proposal would make marriage legally meaningless. This means I can fuck an entire brothel of whores, give her every genital mutilating STD in the book...and she has to deal with it--- "sacrifice" for her decision to marry me.

Do people like this actually think things through? Or do they just make mindless attempts, like this proposal, to try to show society that they are contributing members, and don't deserve a bullet in the head?


To the Harvard thing:
Who cares if it did or didn't happen, there's still too many god damn jews around...running Hollywood and charging me interest.
 

jeepneasy

Dude!
Jul 14, 2009
73
0
6
44
Central, CA
This guy is a self righteous piece of shit. This whole marriage protection act is nothing but a farce and a political red hearing. Conservatives talk about saving money and fiscal responsibility but yet hear in California alone there has been two elections for some form of "protect marriage". Now this pompous piece of shit wants to ban divorce by running another ballot initiative and clogging up the courts with appeals.....what a dick he needs to fuck off
 

Klautermauffen

F-f-f-f-f-f-f-founderrr
Founder
Mar 11, 2008
3,846
26
68
32
Seattle
Oi. You guys need to lighten up. You don't get it, Neg? Prop 8 was supposedly about protecting marriage. Well... run with that! If you really want to protect marriage - make it forever - like it's supposed to be. People might think twice about just up and marrying someone.

No, this guy isn't serious - but it does make a good point. I thought it was hilarious.

As for the random Harvard addition... well, I didn't want to make another thread for it alone or put it random thoughts or something, so I just added it to one of my threads - which was already pretty random.
 

bahumbas

Dude!
Aug 29, 2009
55
0
6
34
Can I summerized what I have just read?
completelely nothing
a lot was said and it meant hardly nothing
The man wasn't clear as how he is going to protect marriage and baning divorced would mean tons of people sueing the state. This isn't about the institution of marriage this is some stuff that sounds good but has not substance. I got to say when it comes to marriage why don't california consider the Maine example (I think it is the right state but sorry if my facts are wrong) Marriage is still between a man and a woman and gays can have a civil union where economically speaking it is equal to marriage but as for a union of a man and a woman it is not. As far as baning divorce that is just like prohibition all over again. Catholic or not people who want to separate in this union of a man and a woman will do it either the state like it or not. The state forcing people to stay together is just another example of government having too much power to control our personal lives. If people want to live promicuously the state can not stop them. If God intended to have no one live promicuously then he would of easily send lighting and just kill off the ones doing it. He doesn't need humans killing humans (sinning badly) as an act of playing god.
 

InterStella

Shit Mum.... Yay!
Founder
Mar 11, 2008
738
0
16
51
Rule Britannia!
"Jesus still loves you if you get divorced, just not as much as before"

Fucking hilarious!

Of course, I agree completely with every word.
 

Negativecool

Gold Member
Founder
May 30, 2008
2,359
43
78
39
Internet
Can I summerized what I have just read?
completelely nothing
a lot was said and it meant hardly nothing
The man wasn't clear as how he is going to protect marriage and baning divorced would mean tons of people sueing the state. This isn't about the institution of marriage this is some stuff that sounds good but has not substance. I got to say when it comes to marriage why don't california consider the Maine example (I think it is the right state but sorry if my facts are wrong) Marriage is still between a man and a woman and gays can have a civil union where economically speaking it is equal to marriage but as for a union of a man and a woman it is not. As far as baning divorce that is just like prohibition all over again. Catholic or not people who want to separate in this union of a man and a woman will do it either the state like it or not. The state forcing people to stay together is just another example of government having too much power to control our personal lives. If people want to live promicuously the state can not stop them. If God intended to have no one live promicuously then he would of easily send lighting and just kill off the ones doing it. He doesn't need humans killing humans (sinning badly) as an act of playing god.
God help ya you're trying...