Comments on: Ruby-Sachs: Banning Divorce No Joke

By: cjones

cjones — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 03:47:44 +0000

You’re forgetting that the point of this is to show how ridiculously easy it is in California to place citizen initiatives on the ballot. It should never be easy, or may be even impossible, in any state in this union to be able to deny basic civil or human rights on the basis of a simple majority vote.

By: Harry Hay

Harry Hay — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 21:56:14 +0000

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.)

By: Harry Hay

Harry Hay — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 21:50:49 +0000

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.

By: DaveW

DaveW — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:29:46 +0000

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.

By: ALAN

ALAN — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 02:00:14 +0000

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.

By: Mike W, South Range WI

Mike W, South Range WI — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 01:46:53 +0000

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.

By: JerryM70

JerryM70 — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 01:41:26 +0000

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.

By: Linda Saltz

Linda Saltz — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:14:59 +0000

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.

By: Dr. Ian

Dr. Ian — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:21:30 +0000

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!

By: tiredofit

tiredofit — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:20:38 +0000

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.