Subscribe to Breaking NewsRuby-Sachs: Banning Divorce No Joke
There are a group of LGBT and straight activists and comedians who think placing a measure on the ballot in California banning divorce would be a funny slap in the face to traditional marriage advocates.
Their logic has some merit.
But those who think that getting at the bigots by threatening a right held dear by so many women – yes women – are missing the point. Divorce is a right that the relatively powerless half of any relationship holds to extricate themselves from an untenable situation. The right to leave ones husband and find another hasn’t always been there and it took a considerable amount of time and organization and protest to secure this privilege.
The fact that divorce has become a joke illustrates how removed the LGBT movement is from its roots. Civil rights struggles might be most recently remembered as racial clashes in the United States. But before we worried about segregation, women’s movements began clamoring for rights for over half of the population. The women’s movement was the first movement in the United States to challenge the kind of emotional and family oriented legal discrimination we now fight as LGBT people.
That movement taught us that the personal is political.
It may seem to all of us now that traditional marriage activists would never consider doing away with something as common and fundamental as the right to divorce, and maybe this security is a sign of progress. But we are risking political work that took generations. We are making a joke of all those women who suffered in marriages they didn’t have the right or the means to leave.
Let’s use this story as an opportunity to thank those activists who came before us and to remember that arguing for personal rights is a privilege. Using the language of family and relationships in an advocacy context without being laughed out of the room is a gift. Feminists gave us that gift and we should never consider putting their hard work at risk.
You DO take this too serious. Do you really think this could pass??
As a Canadian lesbian I find this same-gender-marriage fight in the states to be a mockery of anything decent. How sad that divorce is being used to make a point. Divorce is a horrible thing and I am happy to say that out of the ten marriages my gay friends have united in, only one of those couples has gotten divorced. Thats 10% in my world. And over 50% in the straight world are divorced….hmmmm I’m so glad to know that str8 Americans are doing the marriage thing so well. I am the first to stand up for women’s rights and to help fight alongside my American counterparts who are struggling for rights that we hopefully dont take for granted here. Feminists have given us many rights that should not have been arbitrary in the first place. People (men and str8s) covet their lofty positions of having everything they want in the States and just hate sharing freedom and equality. Perhaps that is the American air of superiority the rest of the world abhors. They watch as Americans invade countries to fight for “freedom” yet they shit on their own vulnerable people back home. Another article on here is about latino, jewish, black, and several religious leaders all doing their “these are MY rights” dance (again) and that certainly makes one ponder,,, since when did oppression become a minority hand-me-down?
I have to say I agree with you in terms of what this says about our “community” “political movement” “whatever”. However, I do think that on some level this measure should be put on the ballot. Not because the religious right wouldn’t happily get rid of divorce, but because the middle would see exactly what the “sanctity of marriage” means in political terms. I do not believe that this is a joke at all, nor do I believe for a moment that the majority would vote divorce away. I believe this is an act of civil disobedience within the confines of our political systems “proper” workings. We have become far too “correct” in our processes. We are too concerned about not upsetting anyone. A few minutes watching the ads our campaigns ran in Main and California will prove that. While I am not a proponent of irrational radicalism, I am a fan of leaving politeness at the door when the subject is this important. Social niceties exist to maintain whatever the current political social power structure is. “Politeness” is about not pissing off the people in charge. Well it’s time to stop being polite, and this is an awfully powerful way to do it. I would sign the petition to put this on the ballot. I would vote NO NO NO on it in the ballot booth, but I would sign the petition to make it an issue.
It would be interesting to see the add campaigns. What would the Mormon’s have to say. Protect Marriage and family be pro-divorce. While we are at it how about requiring anyone who gets pregnant to marry the person who go them that way. Could be interesting, if they wife cheats, would she need to marry the 2nd/50th guy while not being able to divorce her current hubby.
Would the adulterers be subject to forced sterilization to prevent this from happening in the future?
You’re right — the idea of banning divorce sends the wrong message. What should really be banned is RE-marriage after divorce. That ties our campaign to the struggle for marriage rights — not the prospect of disillusion or a marriage.
I will not be signing the ballot petition, nor would I vote for the initiative if it made the ballot. While I appreciate that the purpose is to make a statement about the hypocrisy of the religious right when it comes to marriage rights, I don’t think that using ballot initiatives is the best way to go about doing so. Nor do I really have any interest in outlawing divorce.
I honestly don’t believe that the women who fought for women’s rights intended for the right to divorce be used simply because “I don’t love you anymore”. It was intended for women who were forced into marriage, were abused or neglected, and had no way out and no refuge.
My sister has decided she wants a divorce. Why? Because she simply “does not love” her husband anymore. And, by her own admission, my brother-in-law is a loving husband and a fantastic father. He is devastated. So, because she does not “love” him anymore, she will ruin 4 people’s lives, including 3 children. Sounds pretty childish and selfish, doesn’t it?
Just because divorce is a “right” does not mean it should be used indiscriminately, by any means. There are bad marriages, there are abusive marriages. But there are also good marriages that should not be allowed to end simply because one of the partners is selfish and self-serving, and wants to divorce simply because they don’t love their spouse anymore.
Plain and simple.
If a person TRULY believes in “traditional” marriage, then he/she would automatically be against divorce. I would like to see a debate with the right-wing religious conservatives on this one. How can you defend marriage and protect divorce.
In the past in some states, a person would have to sue for divorce. That is, go before a judge and make his or her case for dissolving the marriage. If one partner in the marriage is being abused, emotionally or physically, then divorce should be granted. Otherwise, you’re locked-in!
I believe that the bigots would pass this law because men would be able to have as many affairs as they want with out lossing any of their matteral belonging and income. Woman would have no rigts which is exactly what the right wing want.
I am in general agreement with those who oppose this initiative. What I could support is an initiative that prohibits couples who divorce from marrying additional partners as long as the first partner is still alive.
When people are allowed to marry, divorce, remarry, divorce and remarry they have ultimately turned marriage into an institution of legalized prostitution.
As a 55 year old gay rights activist, I have been supportive of the feminist movement for many decades. However I part company when a woman’s right to leave a marriage becomes more important than my right to enter into one. This movement doesn’t try to make a joke of feminist struggles and triumphs. It attempts to point out the dangers of letting one group of citizens override the civil liberties of any other group. It’s a fine example of thinking outside the box.. something I wish more of our community were capable of doing.
Can everybody just hear the priests at their pulpits now. The catholic church would have to be for this law. The rest — I am not to sure about. But it would be interesting to hear what they would say. If I could sign the petition, I would.
perhaps a better choice would have been a ban on fruitless marriages (infertile couples) or a requirement to produce offspring in first 18 months or it is dissolved. I agree the right to divorce is so closely intertwined with our rights struggle that it may not be the right thing to go after even if this is such a great idea.
Yup ban American divorce, a female women’s liberation institution designed to help free women from abusive relationship and protect children. End alimony and child support, make her stay with that man.
Or maybe, this is the top gays telling the bottom gays, that they get nodda when they leave.
Yes, most religions have marriage ceremonies, but no religion has divorce ceremonies. Divorce is a secular state instutition. The Catholic church will give an annulment, if you meet their criteria, but you can not divorce and re-marry in a Catholic wedding and ceremony. ( I am not Catholic, so please divert your hate elsewhere.)