2010 California proposition would ban divorce

[Holmes]

http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i823_initiative_09-0026.pdf

[Scam of God]

At least the person putting it forward, if s/t/he/y/s/y/'re/it's serious about it, is genuinely earnest in saying that it's meant to preserve marriage.

[Stampever]

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?

[Scam of God]

However, this is stupid.

Sure.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure.

[dead0man]

If Prop 8 was about protecting marriage, Calif. man reasons, a ballot initiative outlawing divorce should win in a landslide.
link

You must be logged in to read this quote.

good stuff

[Alcon]

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?

[Torie]

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I could possibly see a proposition to eliminate no-fault divorce passing, and certainly one that required both parties to agree to a no-fault divorce would pass.

Of course, since this is California we're talking about, it is entirely possible that this publicity stunt could backfire and the proposition would pass, since I imagine it will not receive a lot of advertising dollars one way or the other, so many voters might have only a vague idea of what it is for.