Posted on by bobcargill (@xkv8r)

in the fall of 2008, california voters were asked to choose whether or not to overturn a california law that allowed same-sex couples to marry. a ballot initiative named the ‘california marriage protection act‘, but better known simply as ‘proposition 8’ sought to amend article 1 of the california state constitution, adding a single sentence that reads:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

despite the large number of catholics, mormons, and evangelical christians that voted heavily in favor of it, the ‘yes on 8’ campaign never explicitly mentioned the bible. rather, the ‘yes on 8’ campaign argued that the purpose of their campaign to ban same-sex marriage was to ‘protect traditional marriage.’ according to the prop 8 website, the measure would prevent against undermining,

the value of marriage altogether at a time when we should be restoring marriage, not undermining it.

‘yes on 8’ supporters regularly called for a ban on same-sex marriage to help ‘protect marriage.’ the ‘yes on 8’ website argues:

Proposition 8 protects marriage as an essential institution of society. While death, divorce, or other circumstances may prevent the ideal, the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father.

john marcotte of sacramento, california has taken this desire to protect the institution of marriage and to ensure that children are married by a mother and a father to the next level. marcotte has filed a petition to add another ballot measure on the 2010 california state ballot entitled the ‘2010 california marriage protection act.’ his petition seeks to ban divorce in california.

according to marcotte:

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.

this is brilliant. it is nothing more than the natural extension of the ban on gay marriage. the bible clearly prohibits divorce except in the case of marital infidelity. matthew 5:32 reads:

But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

however, the penalty in the jewish tradition for marital infidelity was death by stoning. leviticus 20:10 reads:

If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.

thus, a man can divorce his wife if she cheats on him, but she cannot remarry because presumably, she’d be dead. interestingly, however, the divorced man also cannot remarry. the second part of matthew 5:32 says:

matthew 5:32 reads:

and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

thus, marrying a divorced individual is also prohibited. likewise, paul prohibits the remarriage of christians. after encouraging all xns not to get married (1 corinthians 7:7, 8, 27), paul states in 7:10-11:

To the married I give this command-not I but the Lord-that the wife should not separate from her husband. (but if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

thus, the bible clearly states that christians are not to divorce (except for the infidelity exception in matthew 5), and that divorced individuals should not remarry. note that no exception is provided for remarriage in 1 corinthians 7. thus, if one reads the bible in a fundamentalist fashion, according to the apostle paul, divorced individuals cannot remarry under any circumstance.

therefore, it is fair to say that in order to properly protect marriage and ensure that children are raised by both a mother and a father, not only should same-sex marriage be banned, but so too should divorce, as well as the remarriage of any divorced individual. this is precisely what john marcotte is seeking to do by banning divorce: protect traditional marriage. and marcotte is absolutely sure that those that supported and contributed to the ‘yes on 8’ campaign will contribute to and campaign vigorously for his 2010 california marriage protection act. why wouldn’t they? if the supporters of the ‘yes on 8’ campaign truly believe in protecting marriage, and do not want to appear hypocritical, they will eagerly support a ban on divorce.

the bible says homosexuality is unauthorized. the bible also says divorce is unauthorized (with one exception). the bible says the remarriage of divorced individuals is unauthorized. if we’re going to ban gay marriage, we should ban divorce too. if we really want to ‘defend marriage,’ and use state laws to do so, let’s do it all the way!

otherwise, let’s end this hypocritical nonsense and let divorced individuals and same sex couples marry. what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

robert cargill

Filed under: bible, california, humor, justice and legal, marriage equality, politics, robert cargill, satire | Tagged: 2010, act, bible, california, divorce, john marcotte, marriage, prop 8, protection, same-sex marriage, satire |