Well, he/she isn't banning divorce all together (whatever a "voidable" condition would be). However, this is stupid. Let people get divorced if they want. Why should some return war vet not be allowed to divorce his old wife and marry one that is much younger and wealthier upon his return?
A "void" marriage, as far as I know, would be one that was registered legally but later determined to not be valid -- that is, because one partner was incompetent to enter contract, there was a paperwork screw-up, whatever. This law does seem to ban any valid marriage from ending in divorce.
This is one of those measures I'd be fascinated to see returns on. In fact, comparing this with Prop. 8 returns would be very interesting. But it will almost assuredly not make the ballot, right?
If this insanity actually hit the ballot, I would be amazed if it got as much as 30% of the vote. If it did pass, the courts would strike it down under the newly robust liberty clause that the California Supremes have found exists in the state constitution, inspired no doubt by Justice Kennedy's finding of the same thing in the US Constitution.
The obstacles to this actually becoming law and sticking make the perils of Pauline look like a smooth sail with a nice tail wind in comparison.
