…and this is a 
California took such a brave leap last year to protect the purity of marriage by denying it to all of those with matching, instead of complementary, genitali; now John Marcotte wants to take the next logical step, and get an initiative on the California ballot to outlaw divorce. That's an excellent idea; most marriages aren't threatened by homosexuality at all (strangely, though, it's the must fervent fundamentalists who are most tempted by the love that dare not speak its name), but they are at risk from divorce. Nothing would strengthen the institution of marriage more than making a wedding equivalent to a shackling.
I also like this idea because my marriage isn't at risk for divorce anyway, so it doesn't affect me at all, but the prospect of being able to meddle in other people's lives and tell them exactly how they must act gives me a kind of head rush of power. All those women trapped in loveless marriages, or dominated by abusive husbands…nuh-uh, no way out for you, you get to suffer until you are dead! All those philandering men who can't seem to find satisfaction with one woman, your days are done — we have to crack down on the wretched slugs who cheat on vows mandated by a loving God.
Next year, someone needs to get an anti-masturbation law on the slate. Then we need to outlaw birth control. If we meddle enough, I'm sure we can get to the point where every marriage is a perfect and happy one.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: strangebrew | September 11, 2009 9:18 AM
Is there really no end to fundamentalist insanity?
Posted by: jagannath | September 11, 2009 9:19 AM
Ahem, you forgot the required marriages to all eligible people.
Them singles are from the devil and you need to get rid of those freedom loving singles. Without unmarried people there is no one to sin with, eh?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 11, 2009 9:20 AM
Damn! I can't sign.
Can someone please start a petition to dissolve all marriages in California? I'd be tempted to move their just to vote on other people's marriages.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 11, 2009 9:21 AM
I do love his sense of humor:
Posted by: Jeremy | September 11, 2009 9:22 AM
I suppose one can take solace in knowing this will be dismissed without much thought... Right? Riiight??
Posted by: McCorvic | September 11, 2009 9:24 AM
Oh oh! And then, after that, can we pass a law that states that women must be in a state of constant pregnancy once they hit the age of 17? Jesus loves him some Christian babies!
Posted by: Trug | September 11, 2009 9:24 AM
I can't access the main site (rescuemarriage.org), but from looking at the "interview" I'd have to say this is a Poe. Setting up a booth outside of WalMart? Opposed by gays, MSNBC hosts? 2012 when Sara Palin is President and/or the end of the world? Beautiful!
But since I can't get to the real deal, I might be way off on this one.
Posted by: Alien | September 11, 2009 9:25 AM
A law outlawing any sexual activity without a reasonable chance of procreation should nail both masturbation and birth control in one fell swoop.
Posted by: Richard Eis | September 11, 2009 9:27 AM
-John: I wish that I could force people that hate each other with the intensity of a thousand white suns back into a loveless marriage, but my attorneys tell me that getting that law passed would be unlikely in the current political climate.
I'll try to get a "win" by banning divorce and save that for 2012 -- when Sarah Palin will be president and/or the end of the world will occur.-
Poe???!???
I don't know any more...it's too hard.
Posted by: FutureMD | September 11, 2009 9:27 AM
I think that may be the opposite of how to get happy marriages, PZ. You're way off on this one.
Posted by: Fake Al Gore | September 11, 2009 9:28 AM
Wow. This guy really does see women as property.
From the first link:
"if you married an 8-year-old, you don't get to keep her. She goes back on the shelf."
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
September 11, 2009 9:30 AM
Yup, it was the natural next step, because their issue with gay marriage wasn't all their lies, but rather reinforcing "proper" gender roles among their chattel and make it harder for them to escape them. Divorce was always the next thing to attack, just as contraception was after ground was lost on abortion rights.
It's also why everyone should care whenever a hated minority is attacked, because it never stops there and by the time the haters get to something that damages everyone, there ends up being decades of bad laws to roll back. See the mess with Education districts.
It's also why allies shouldn't fall into the "why aren't you outlawing divorce" trap because they want to, so bad, just as they're perfectly happy to kill some slut-lovers to show "how much they care about what was it again, something about babies, right?"
If we want to take it home, make a bill taking away marriage rights for fundamentalist christians because of their proclivity for child abuse, molestation, and crimes against the equal treatment of women laws. Just as pointed of a reminder that any minority can be a target with these laws.
Posted by: Pip Hamilton | September 11, 2009 9:30 AM
This is definitely a parody.
"I wish that I could force people that hate each other with the intensity of a thousand white suns back into a loveless marriage, but my attorneys tell me that getting that law passed would be unlikely in the current political climate."
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 11, 2009 9:31 AM
Folks, he is not serious. Or rather, he is seriously kidding. He put up $200 for a great joke that proves a serious point.
Posted by: MrFire | September 11, 2009 9:31 AM
Congressman Joe Wilson will likely want to insert the provision that this ruling not apply to illegal immigrants.
Because they aren't really human.
Posted by: Jonas E | September 11, 2009 9:31 AM
"All those philandering men who can't seem to find satisfaction with one woman, your days are done"
Are you kidding? We are just about to get started. After all, our spouse can't do a thing about it anyway.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 11, 2009 9:33 AM
Are you kidding? We are just about to get started. After all, our spouse can't do a thing about it anyway.
You have heard of Lorena Bobbit, no?
Posted by: Darren Galea | September 11, 2009 9:33 AM
Try living in a country where divorce is against the law. Thanks archbishop!
Searh "Mgr Paul Cremona" for some funny statements.
Posted by: daveau | September 11, 2009 9:34 AM
If this guy is a Poe, he's close to being a genius.
Posted by: Fake Al Gore | September 11, 2009 9:35 AM
Nevermind. It would appear this is a Poe, as is suggested above.
From the first link:
"Sometimes other people need to sacrifice in order to protect my ideas about traditional marriage."
No True Believer(tm) would admit to that.
Posted by: dinkum | September 11, 2009 9:36 AM
Oh, snap.
Er, I mean snip.
Posted by: IaMoL | September 11, 2009 9:37 AM
I say let the Catholics be the moral police and dictate law since they've done so well running their church: it's crime and sin free!
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 11, 2009 9:37 AM
I think that's exactly why we should use that argument. The majority of Americans are in agreement that divorce should be legal. Almost everyone can imagine what their own life would be like if they were in a bad marriage and couldn't leave. It hits home.
By showing that anti-gay-marriage and anti-divorce and anti-contraception all go together as one package, it helps to make clear that being anti-gay-marriage is as irrational and dangerous as the rest.
Posted by: Dusty | September 11, 2009 9:38 AM
PZ,
Please!!! Don't even JOKE about outlawing masturbation!!! I shudder to think of such a cataclysm!
Posted by: Robert Thille
|
September 11, 2009 9:40 AM
No way man! At least not until mine goes thru!
Posted by: Victor | September 11, 2009 9:40 AM
You know, fundies are not known for their ability to detect sarcasm or envision the outcome of an action. This may pass.
Posted by: MadScientist | September 11, 2009 9:40 AM
Why outlaw divorce? Just mandate mohammedanism as the official religion. That way men can beat their wives if they're unhappy for any reason. No need for divorce when you're allowed to beat the women to death on a whim. So, just outlaw christianity and any other voodoo except for mohammed's brand of voodoo.
Posted by: And State | September 11, 2009 9:46 AM
Dear Dr. California,
My wife snores. I mean, seriously snores. Like, you know when you're stopped at a traffic light, and the guy in the jeep with the tattoos cranks his music up so loud that it shakes your rearview mirror? That's what my bedroom is like, all night, every night.
Can you suggest a law that I can craft for my state that can make this alright and restore happiness to my marriage? You see, I live in Texas, where LGBTs will never have any choices, so the whole gay thing doesn't trouble me at all.
Counting on you,
Sleepless in Austin
Posted by: raven | September 11, 2009 9:47 AM
Bit of a liberal, aren't you? Women are supposed to also be barefoot. Walk 3 steps behind the males. And cover their heads at all times.
With any luck, this guy and his coreligionists will turn California into the next Afghanistan, Somalia, or Iran in no time. Because theocracy works so well there.
Posted by: nahkampfbiber | September 11, 2009 9:49 AM
Actually, here in germany, we have a "politician"(if you can call her that way) that proposed the opposite.
Posted by: Enzyme | September 11, 2009 9:50 AM
Hang on - if marriage is so great, shouldn't you embrace divorce? That way, you can get married more than once.
Unless polygamy and polyandry are on the cards, and California's going to be one big love-in...
Posted by: IaMoL | September 11, 2009 9:50 AM
Please pardon me if I decline to shake your hand.Posted by: ElitistB | September 11, 2009 9:51 AM
I can see the advertisements now:
"You already took the first step, California, and banned marriage from anyone else who wasn't like you. Now we are asking you to take the next step to protect the sanctity of marriage.
Brought to you by those guys in Utah who thought your state was a rebirth of Sodom and Gomorrah."
Posted by: bcoppola | September 11, 2009 9:53 AM
I agree: a Poe. Note also the link/ad at the top of the page for "The Mischief Maker's Manual", a how-to book of "awesome" pranks.
Now PZ, were you just playing along with the joke to test us (like the Old Testament Jehovah), or did you take the guy seriously?
Posted by: catgirl | September 11, 2009 9:53 AM
Once they outlaw masturbation, I wonder how they'll enforce it. Weekly lie detector tests or constant video monitoring? Do nocturnal emissions count? I guess it's not a crime if there's no intent.
As for outlawing birth control, would that also include the rhythm method and the withdrawal method? What about just plain abstinence? I guess we'll have to hire millions of social workers to supervise every sex act and make sure it has the best possible chance of leading to pregnancy.
Posted by: Nangleator | September 11, 2009 9:54 AM
Actually, a law that made divorce illegal would free men to philander all they wanted. With no possibility of punishment for cheating, no threat of alimony or child support, fornication would become the norm.
Such a man could step out on his wife and never see her again or give her another penny, while having sex with every other person in the world except for her. And all within the holy union of matrimony!
Maybe it's not a Poe, but a Hail Mary attempt by a scumbag afraid of his money.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
September 11, 2009 9:56 AM
You got this from cockeyed.com? This guy got interviewed by Rob Cockerham?
I don't know about Marcotte, but Cockerham is one of the most ingenious pranksters ever.
$200 to make a point is nothing to him. I highly recommend browsing through the rest of the site. His Halloween costumes alone are worth it, but his pranks are absolutely brilliant.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 11, 2009 9:59 AM
PZ Myers wrote:
Only when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
September 11, 2009 10:00 AM
People, this is a reductio -- it's taking the logic of Prop 8 and the so-called protection of marriage acts to its logical conclusion. What Marcotte wants to do is expose the hypocrisy: people who voted for Prop 8 should, for exactly the same reasons, also vote for this bill.
I bet they won't.
Posted by: IST | September 11, 2009 10:02 AM
Come on California, you're supposed to be the crazy state...
/ stealing from Eddie Izzard, but in all fairness, what happened to Cali in the last ...erm... 20-30 years?
Posted by: Jan Andrea | September 11, 2009 10:03 AM
You guys, of course he's not serious. He's doing the FSM of the marriage circuit -- embracing it in all of its stupidity.
OTOH, I posted the link on my Facebook page, and while most people got it ("it" being how stupid it was to try to legislate heterosexual marriage in the same way the Prop 8 people did against same-sex marriage), I had two people comment quite seriously that they would support the law. Scary. Scary scary.
Posted by: mikka | September 11, 2009 10:06 AM
This is a beautiful poe
Posted by: JC | September 11, 2009 10:08 AM
Back to the middle age...
Posted by: Jaketoadie | September 11, 2009 10:09 AM
While we are going lets not forget to abolish that horrible law that makes it possible for a man to rape his wife. Once we are married she is my property and it is her duty to fulfill my every desire, regardless of what she wants.
Posted by: strangebrew | September 11, 2009 10:10 AM
Even if a Poe...the prob is someone somewhere will approve of it...might even feel the spirit moved to adopt that position...and not in numbers few methinks...
Posted by: Pete | September 11, 2009 10:11 AM
Obviously Poe. But I happen to think he's right, to "protect" traditional marriage it makes more sense to outlaw divorce then to outlaw gay marriage.
Posted by: tsg | September 11, 2009 10:13 AM
It's a real initiative, according to http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#ag , but I agree, it's satire:
Legislation to absurdity. And getting gays to sign it is priceless.
Posted by: Pablo | September 11, 2009 10:14 AM
Exactly. These are the kinds of things we need to keep bringing up with those "Stand for Marriage" and other anti-gay marriage organizations that hide behind the "protecting marriage" mantra.
Any time they mention anything about "protecting marriage" they have to be asked if they support outlawing divorce.
Posted by: Amenhotepstein | September 11, 2009 10:15 AM
This guy is a brilliant Poe! I especially like this line:
I'd love to see some of the looks he gets when he delivers the punchline!Posted by: strangebrew | September 11, 2009 10:17 AM
#46
As I was saying about some bunnies getting all happy clappy about the nonsense...hoping I would be mistaken...but it seems I am not...oh woe!
I hope Pete is A.N.Other Poe!
Posted by: Andyman | September 11, 2009 10:19 AM
IMHON, Marcotte never really had the look of a ignorant fundamentalist about him.
Posted by: Amenhotepstein | September 11, 2009 10:22 AM
Dusty,I just had a shuddering cataclysm myself last night! Booyah!
Posted by: blueelm | September 11, 2009 10:25 AM
Simple! Outlaw unhappiness.
Unhappy people should be institutionalized until they are happy or until death, whichever comes first :D:D:D
Logically outlawing divorce protects the sanctity of marriage a lot more than excluding homosexuals. I love it! I don't agree with PZ though, I bet some of the hardcore fundie types would vote for it. That's the danger of a Poe isn't it?
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
September 11, 2009 10:25 AM
@22
True. But it's a delicate gamble. We've seen on the contraception issue (something that has pretty overwhelming support thanks especially to the AIDS and other STD scares) that idiots can still do some pretty strong damage by turning their heads to the issue. The number of bitter divorcees currently picketing the Planned Parenthoods, would be glad to "put the hurt on that bitch" the old fashioned way and the number of Men Right's Activists with their single obsession with how evil divorce courts are are enough to make one think twice about giving them the go-ahead to go full wingnut.
I'm not entirely sure that if we put forth a divorce ban, especially with bitter gays adding some percentage votes that we wouldn't have a close victory.
Maybe it'd mobilize broad resistance, much like the insanity in schools is finally starting to mobilize scientists and educators and parents in general to start resisting the religious indoctrination crap.
Also, it's not the real issue that the opponents are against. Protecting marriage is a dismissible lie, much like "resisting communism". It's a "non-hatey" way of saying the real objections which for the mushy middle tends to be some combination of "I don't want to think about sex or question my sexuality", "I don't want to be treated like I treat women/ worry about women treating me like the men in my life treat me", and "eww, gross". Attacking these foundations by coming out, promoting healthy sexuality, etc... is what will really get them.
Protecting marriage is just the excuse, much like trying to deal with creationists on their specious arguments when the real issue is a combination of "I'm scared of death" and "I want to be special."
Though I will admit it's therapeutic to point out just how full of shit their talking points are.
Posted by: Ian | September 11, 2009 10:29 AM
I'm all for Marcotte's law. It would eventually lead to no one getting married and completely fuck-up the religious rights plans to rule our every thought and deed....
Posted by: SatansParakeet | September 11, 2009 10:30 AM
Of course the real result of such legislation would be the drastic decrease in the number of marriages. I'm all for this! If we want to encourage everyone to run around having sex without marriage, this is the perfect solution.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | September 11, 2009 10:33 AM
I would think that the news media lobby in Sacramento (Duvall's "consituency" perhaps...or not) would be full force against this bill. After all, what would they talk about in between all the Hollywood adoptions from Africa?
Posted by: truthspeaker | September 11, 2009 10:35 AM
And women too. Cheating on your spouse is an equal-opportunity offense.
Posted by: Ms. Crazy Pants | September 11, 2009 10:38 AM
I could vote for a bill that has a ban on divorce as long as it simultaneously makes murder legal.
I warned my ex before he proposed that in my family, marriage was "until death do you part" even if you had to kill each other to get there. If the laws would just change, then we could finish this off the right way. (Yes, he's still alive despite my best efforts at killing him with my mind.)
Posted by: blueelm | September 11, 2009 10:39 AM
I don't know why we still have marriage at all. It's a silly thing I think. It would be nicer just to have a state civil union for everyone that allows the sharing of health benifits, ICU visits, etc. with one named party with whom one shares this contract. I also think parenthood should require a contractual obligation. Before getting pregnant both parties should agree to their terms of parental involvement, without this contract they default to a set of state rules.
Those contracts could be drawn and dissolved through the state so there'd still be plenty of work for lawyers.
Then the religious can have marriage all to their crazy little selves.
Posted by: Captain Obvious | September 11, 2009 10:42 AM
Could you not just outlaw John Marcotte?
I'm sure he has broken at least one of God's many Commandments in his time and thus should be driven into the sea like the godless liberal gay progressive muslim terrorist he is.
Posted by: Lee Picton | September 11, 2009 10:43 AM
Has she been tested for sleep apnea? There's snoring and then there's SNORING. When the husbeast and I used to check into a hotel in the old days, I would ask for a separate room. I got funny looks and was asked if I wanted an adjoining room and even funnier looks when I said I wanted one in another zipcode. That's how bad it was. First came surgery for a severely deviated septum, which reduced the decibel level to tolerable, but did not cure the apnea. The came a second surgery to alter the shape of the soft palate in back. Snoring was gone but the apnea remained. Now the husbeast sleeps with a CPAP machine, and is not falling asleep all the time, and the machine makes a pleasant whooshing noise that is easy to sleep to. Seriously, sleep apnea is way underdiagnosed and can be life-threatening. I recommend a hospital sleep study.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 11, 2009 10:44 AM
I fully expect a no dating before age 18 and only with a chaperone law soon.
Maybe some anti-hand holding measures are necessary as well.
Oh, and a high school promise ring is as good as a wedding ring law.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
September 11, 2009 10:44 AM
How do Fuckwads like John Marcotte reproduce? Someone this stupid can't possible know how!
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 11, 2009 10:45 AM
I feel confident that it won't be close. But if it does pass, it won't be constitutional. It amounts to indentured servitude and would not stand under the Thirteenth Amendment.
Posted by: The Pint | September 11, 2009 10:47 AM
@ #6 & #29 - you both are obviously godless liberals. Why wait until women are 17 to make them start bearing children for Christ? They should be married off and breeding as soon as they have their first menstruation. There's no time to waste once the eggs start dropping and they won't be getting any younger you know, tick-tock, tick-tock! And what's with this walking 3 steps behind their husband business? That implies that they'd be leaving the home, and they can't do that since they'll be too busy raising their little army to ever leave the house and be exposed to the wicked temptations outside.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 11, 2009 10:48 AM
Regardless of the disagreements about tactics, it's clear that John Marcotte is a sharp satirist and a brilliant writer.
Posted by: Pablo | September 11, 2009 10:49 AM
How is that any different from what we have now? The only difference is that the state calls it "marriage." That it coops the same name as what the religious use does not mean that it is the same. From the state perspective, marriage is a civil union that allows...etc
It is also a dissolvable contract, and we call that "divorce."
Posted by: Meyrick Kirby | September 11, 2009 10:50 AM
The law will outlaw divorce, not cheating. Get with the programme!
Posted by: Lynna | September 11, 2009 10:52 AM
Marriages made in mormon temples are "for time and eternity" -- begetting the old joke that you can't even get out of a bad marriage by dying.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 11, 2009 10:53 AM
In other news, some shithead in Ireland has proposed murdering the children of poor families, as a means of reducing poverty!
Posted by: stogoe | September 11, 2009 10:54 AM
They amended the California State Constitution to require a 75% vote to raise taxes, that's what happened.Posted by: AwesomeRobot | September 11, 2009 10:55 AM
#61 "I don't know why we still have marriage at all."
I really hate this argument. I am a happily married Athiest, and being married to me *does* mean something different from a civil union. I'm not married because I want a bunch of legal benefits, I'm married because I'm in love and want to spend my life with one person. Why should only religions get to practice marriage?
Taking marriage away from everyone now that gays want to get married just feels to me like taking your ball and going home because your parents are making you let your sister play baseball with you.
Posted by: Gwenny
|
September 11, 2009 10:57 AM
I have to say these comments are a bit discouraging. I was certain by the second question he was joking. Or rather, tht he's making a point. I'm disappointed you all didn't REALLY read what he was saying rather than falling for it.
And I'm amused that fundies are falling for it. I doubt we could get it to pass, but then completely removing state support of the sacrament of marriage probably wouldn't get off the ground at all.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 11, 2009 10:57 AM
Looks like some people forgot to power up their bullshit detector rings this morning.
Posted by: stogoe | September 11, 2009 11:00 AM
Hey, guess what! You just described exactly what civil fucking marriage is already!!!!!Why should we change? They're the ones who suck.
Posted by: Margaret | September 11, 2009 11:02 AM
Ah, the art of mockery. Priceless.
Posted by: MrFire | September 11, 2009 11:03 AM
I'll see your anti-hand holding and raise you No Eye Babies.
*credit to whomever raised it on an way older thread*
Posted by: MartyM | September 11, 2009 11:06 AM
Seems to me to be a perfect plan to kill off marriage completely. Who would get marrried in that state?
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | September 11, 2009 11:07 AM
Praise the Lord Brothers and Sisters,
As a literal Bible-believing Christian I endorse this 100%. Why stop at simply persecuting gays? Think of the benefits of following the Bible to its illogical conclusions. We can all stone adulterers in shopping malls and public places for one thing. Oh happy day!
My God may be a merciful God, but he's also a just God, and as long as I'm the stoner and not the stonee it's all good.
Actually, right now I am the stoner. Spliff for Jesus anyone?
Smoggy
Posted by: Adam | September 11, 2009 11:11 AM
You bring up a masturbation law like it's a joke, but the 1.3 million blind people in our country don't think it's a joke. God obviously made them blind as a punishment for our country's allowing of masturbation just like He made AIDS and drowned New Orleans for enabling homosexuals.
Next you'll try to say that we shouldn't be filling in cracks to prevent broken backs! Craziness!
Posted by: And State | September 11, 2009 11:12 AM
@#63
I was being satirical.
Posted by: Fred The Hun | September 11, 2009 11:13 AM
Outlaw divorce?!
Bwahahahahahahaha!
You think all those good christian divorce lawyers are all going to become pro bono marriage counselors or something?
Yeah right!
Posted by: blueelm | September 11, 2009 11:13 AM
Isn't that just semantics then? And since people are already jumping down my throat, I'm married too! Have been for nearly ten years to a very nice man. However I don't see the point in it or what changed. Other than a big expensive ceremony there's really no difference in our lives. Well there's one, people say "oh you're married" like that means something. I really can't say our life is different. As for being spiritually connected, well, neither of us is "spiritual" anyway so that's not exactly possible. I probably would have spent ten years with him without the "marriage" word making people think they have any idea what one relationship is as compared to another. So yeah, you can hate my thinking all you want but if the only argument you have to my logic is "I don't like it" then you really don't have much argument at all.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 11, 2009 11:18 AM
coffee->nose->monitor
Posted by: tsg | September 11, 2009 11:20 AM
Yes. It was you that complained about "marriage" and suggested an alternative that was different in name only. So what's your point?
Posted by: Alyson Miers | September 11, 2009 11:20 AM
And while we're at it, let's outlaw the production, sale, purchase and consumption of alcohol, too! No one will ever be able to turn off their give-a-damn again! No one's tried it yet, so let's give it a go! And if a Constitutional amendment doesn't git 'er done, nothing ever will!
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
September 11, 2009 11:24 AM
strangebrew,
*checks magic 8-ball*
"Signs point to 'Yes'"
Indeed.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: blueelm | September 11, 2009 11:28 AM
So call it marriage then! All I'm saying is that there shouldn't be the involvement of religion in one way or another and that the damned thing should be a civil affair anyway.
I don't care if people call it peanut rape.
Posted by: DumbBrit | September 11, 2009 11:29 AM
PZ, you surely missed a trick here. Change "Protect the sanctity of heterosexual marriage!" to "A Modest Proposal: For Protecting The Sanctity Of Heterosexual Marriage" and a deanship will inevitably be yours. It worked for Swift after all...
Posted by: Madrigalia | September 11, 2009 11:30 AM
There was an initiative some years ago, also in response to measures against gay marriage, to counter the assertion that "traditional marriage" was about protecting children. Details are hazy, but it proposed something like dissolving all marriages in which the couple had not given birth to or adopted children after a certain number of years, and requiring the couple to assert that they were planning to raise children.
Posted by: sailor1031 | September 11, 2009 11:33 AM
"Sometimes other people need to sacrifice in order to protect my ideas about traditional marriage"....what a wonderful parody of the religionist attitude. I wonder how many californians will vote for this. If it passes look for the murder rate there to go through the roof....
Posted by: tsg | September 11, 2009 11:35 AM
It is a civil affair. Whether the couple chooses to have the ceremony presided over by a religious figure is entirely independent.
Posted by: blueelm | September 11, 2009 11:35 AM
That is pure brilliance. I like it even better than this one.
Posted by: Jason S. Clary | September 11, 2009 11:35 AM
You know, this might actually be a good idea if domestic partnerships become available in all states and they are open to heterosexuals. It might just put an end to "marriage" entirely.
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
September 11, 2009 11:36 AM
Rev. BDC,
Sadly, mine's not that high-powered to begin with, and it's an old steam-powered model, to boot. Dang, I suck at recognizing these things, lol
Kudos to strange gods before me, et al. who saw through the clever subterfuge.
My subterfuge is still in the shop. Coolant leak.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Gregg | September 11, 2009 11:36 AM
@#91: You are thinking of Washington's Initiative 957, sponsored by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance (WA-DOMA), a gay rights/political theater group. I am very proud to say that I was the sponsor-of-record of that initiative.
I've linked the official text of the initiative above. Basically, if passed, it would have required couples to have children within three years or else their marriage would be dissolved (as we put it, their marriage license would be revoked) on the grounds of "failure to fulfil the purpose of marriage."
Posted by: Major Kong | September 11, 2009 11:38 AM
"If you don't stop that you'll go blind!"
"Can I just do it until I need glasses?"
Posted by: Jo | September 11, 2009 11:42 AM
Tsg, I totally agree. 'Marriage' or at least some kind of joining ceremony or ritual or whatever has been around for way longer than the Christians, why do they get to have the monopoly on it? My partner and I (both atheists) are getting married in an entirely civil ceremony next year, strictly no religious waffle whatsoever (in fact, we're not even allowed to have words like 'heaven' or 'angels' in our readings as it's a civil ceremony - 100% secular all the way). I think it's important to do it - claim it back! Stop Christians thinking they are the only ones who can have 'proper' relationships!
Posted by: Pablo | September 11, 2009 11:43 AM
The state gives not one whit whether there is any religeous involvement at all. The choice to include religion is up to the individuals. The bigger question is, why shouldn't individuals be allowed to get married within the context of a religious ceremony if they want to?
Posted by: DJ | September 11, 2009 11:48 AM
Interesting how we must use government to "protect the sanctity of marriage" but cannot use it to provide quality healthcare for citizens. The right is immoral and evil.
I love the absurdity of this though, I sure hope it points out the idiocy of prop 8.
Posted by: Qwerty | September 11, 2009 11:48 AM
The Catholic Church already does this; but if you have enough money, you can get an annulment. (And they might even name the new wing of the elementary school in your honor.)
My orthodox Catholic mother would probably approve and donate to this even though she lives in Minnesota. She believed in staying married, but she was lucky enough to say "I do" to the right man.
Posted by: MrFire | September 11, 2009 11:49 AM
Brother Smoggy,
Good to see you valiantly attempting to get through to us hard-to-penetrate atheists.
By the way,
"Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus"
rearranges to:
"4 Lambs Just Zoom By: Bugger!"
Posted by: blueelm | September 11, 2009 11:52 AM
Yes but currently in most states homosexuals that enter a civil union do not get the exact same rights. They don't get alwyas get access to insurance, they can't visit their partner in the hospital, may not be able to enact end of life wills, can't inherit property. So no, there isn't enough of a divide from the religious doctrine and the civil union IMO. They do not get federal benifits and the union often doesn't transfer across state lines. I had a non-religious wedding but my rights in regard to my spouse are recognized across state lines. I just think that hollowing out the "sanctity" of marriage is the first step to making it apply to everyone. Most people have hugely divergent and romantic ideas about what marriage means, but really it's just a word. However, the actual functional components of that union aren't given to everybody right now and that is wrong. To me the most important thing is getting access for everybody to the functional parts of "marriage" or whatever anyone wants to call it. Once those parameters are defined the word will take care of itself simply because words evolve to fit whatever it is they're used to describe. Or at least that's my hypothesis.
After that I have a feeling that some of the more open and tolerant religious groups will also become open to providing ceremonies for homosexual members of their congregations.
Posted by: tsg | September 11, 2009 11:54 AM
@Jo #99
My wife and I are both atheists and were married by a justice of the peace in a ceremony we wrote ourselves (essentially, "do you? do you? You're done."), no religious imagery involved, in the back yard of the bed and breakfast we had the reception in. The party afterward was more important to us than the ceremony.
Posted by: Borlaug | September 11, 2009 11:58 AM
It's a good start but it's still lacking. It fails to completely protect marriage because it still allows people to choose to get married. If people fail to get married their hypothetical marriage is murdered. Sorta like a marriage abortion. A good fix for this is that all marriages should be arranged by the Church. That way everyone gets married, if they like it or not. This solves other problems as well. The marriages can be arranged and performed on newborns, thus removing the risk of pre-marital sex.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
September 11, 2009 12:03 PM
The godbothering part of marriage ceremonies is optional. I just got married a few weeks ago in a courtroom by a judge. Took about two minutes, and not a single mention of any deities.
Anyone who claims that marriage is religion-based is ignorant or lying.
Posted by: MrFire | September 11, 2009 12:04 PM
"4 Lambs Just Zoom By: Bugger!"
Actually, crap, I missed out an 'e' and an 's'.
So make that instead:
"Sub 4 Zesty Mojo: Bugger Lambs"
Posted by: tsg | September 11, 2009 12:08 PM
Well, yes, that's one of the things that we're trying to correct, but it's not marriage that's broken. It's some people's attitudes towards gays. If you just change the legal name to "domestic partnership" for everyone, there will still be homophobes trying to deny gays the right to engage in it.
Posted by: DoxieVee
|
September 11, 2009 12:10 PM
@66 The Pint
Does my infinitely rom-commed mind detect a Bridget Jones's Diary reference in there?
Posted by: bc23.5 | September 11, 2009 12:16 PM
I spent way too much time on the first link. Wow, Rob Cockerham really hates Kirby vacuum salespeople. (and for good reason.)
From the interview with John Marcotte:
Posted by: bc23.5 | September 11, 2009 12:18 PM
oops, blockquote fail. it was my first attempt. any suggestions?
Posted by: Tilting At Windmills | September 11, 2009 12:19 PM
A better answer is to make adultery a criminal offense. Just think of all those politicians that claim to think marriage is so wonderful doing a couple of years for cheating on their spouse. The justice of it all!
Posted by: tsg | September 11, 2009 12:28 PM
Make sure you close them, ie. <blockquote>something or other</blockquote>
the / is the important bit in the closing tag.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 11, 2009 12:28 PM
A better answer is to make adultery a criminal offense.
It is, in about half of the states. In MA, the penalty in law can be up to three years in prison, two years in jail, or $500.
Posted by: The Pint | September 11, 2009 12:28 PM
@ DoxieVee #110 - DING DING! And we have a winner! Nice catch. Much like with the Simpsons, there is usually a Bridget Jone's reference applicable to almost any situation.
Posted by: AJS | September 11, 2009 12:28 PM
nahkampfbiber @ #30:
I approve whole-heartedly of fixed-term marriages.
Pagan handfasting, which was effectively outlawed by writing into law that marriage ceremonies had to be performed indoors to be legally recognisable, was always valid for "as long as love shall last between ye both".
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 11, 2009 12:29 PM
You have to make sure you enclose each section you want to quote differently with tags.
<blockquote>People who supported Prop 8 weren't trying to take rights away from gays, they just wanted to protect traditional marriage. That's why I'm confident that they will support this initiative, even though this time it will be their rights that are diminished. To not support it would be hypocritical.</blockquote>
That is to say; "If you voted for prop 8, you can't change your mind. Never, ever, ever, so there!"
Also, at the bottom of the Request for Title and Summary Section 9002, he directs all correspondence to be directed to "john@badmouth.net".
--------------------------------------
Gives you this
That is to say; "If you voted for prop 8, you can't change your mind. Never, ever, ever, so there!"
Also, at the bottom of the Request for Title and Summary Section 9002, he directs all correspondence to be directed to "john@badmouth.net".
Posted by: JVW | September 11, 2009 12:35 PM
Wow. This John guy is a total and complete douche. Thanks, PZ, for reminding me that such knuckle-dragging jerks have the ability to make a plan and try to convince other jerks to help them with it. I'll sleep better tonight...
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 11, 2009 12:35 PM
I'm just looking at the marriage laws of my new state. Drunk people are forbidden by law from applying for a marriage license or getting married in ND.
Posted by: tsg | September 11, 2009 12:36 PM
@112:
I should also add they can be nested:
<blockquote>You said
<blockquote>He said
<blockquote>She said</blockquote>
No she didn't</blockquote>
Yes he did.</blockquote>
No I didn't.
---
No I didn't.
Posted by: druidbros | September 11, 2009 12:37 PM
You would think they will run out of things to be stupid about but I am afraid with these ID10Ts stupid goes clear to the bone.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 11, 2009 12:38 PM
Yeah, but don't. This is an elaborate joke! He is on our side. Please don't harass him.
Posted by: Traveler | September 11, 2009 12:40 PM
Enjoy it while you can. Shuddering cataclysms are exactly what will be banned.
Posted by: truthspeaker | September 11, 2009 12:43 PM
What you describe is the situation that already exists.
Posted by: Alyson Miers | September 11, 2009 12:44 PM
Naked Bunny @107: CONGRATULATIONS!
Posted by: truthspeaker | September 11, 2009 12:49 PM
Yep. For example, Washington state recently passed a law allowing some, not all, of the benefits of marriage to same-sex domestic partners. "Defenders of marriage" want it repealed:
http://www.protectmarriagewa.com/
Even if you don't call it marriage, they're against it.
Posted by: AJS | September 11, 2009 12:54 PM
I hope in the name of all that is sane and wholesome that it's not serious, but I fear it may be taken seriously anyway.
Still, it might be just the ticket. Ban divorce -> many people get unhappy -> divorce and gay marriage legalised in same act of parliament.
Posted by: Gregg | September 11, 2009 12:58 PM
This is a parody, a sarcastic use of the same weapon that was used against same-sex couples. The amendment sponsor is trying to show the idiocy of Proposition 8.
Posted by: Chgo_Liz
|
September 11, 2009 1:01 PM
@ #91:
Sometime in the mid 1980's there was a well publicized case in Britain. It was right after the Falklands War. A recently returned vet, who had been injured in such a way that he was paraplegic and unable to father children, set out to marry his girlfriend. Unfortunately, they were Catholic. The Catholic church informed them that they could not get married because they couldn't have children. There was a huge public outcry about it, but of course the church didn't back down.
Amazingly it's true: you cannot enter a Catholic marriage if it is *known* that you can't produce children.
I think they ended up getting married at an Anglican church, or in a civil ceremony. But you know how True Believers are: it was horribly upsetting to them because they weren't "really married" according to their religion.
- - -
Kudos to you, Gregg @ #97, for your efforts.
Posted by: bc23.5 | September 11, 2009 1:24 PM
Thanks Rev. BDC and tsg. It looks like I missed the /.
Posted by: AwesomeRobot | September 11, 2009 1:55 PM
"Traditional Marriage" would let me marry multiple women, have kids with their slaves if they failed to provide me with a son, and require them to do what they're told.
I would also be required to marry my brother's wife if he died.
We should modestly propose THAT law =)
Posted by: truthspeaker | September 11, 2009 2:26 PM
Some of the commenters here really need to adjust their satire detectors!
Posted by: Kapitano | September 11, 2009 2:30 PM
Surely it would be easier to outlaw sexuality - but keep sex.
Then outlaw love and make marriage mandatory at age 18.
Then set up breeding camps.
Posted by: uncle frogy | September 11, 2009 2:43 PM
if it was illegal to get married unless you could have children would it be illegal for a post-menopause woman to get married? How about if one or both of the parties were sterile?
Posted by: tsg | September 11, 2009 2:43 PM
@truthspeaker #133
Poe's Law is there for a reason. As sure as I am that this particular person doesn't believe divorce should be illegal, sure as shit someone does.
Posted by: stogoe | September 11, 2009 2:44 PM
I'm not opposed to that law, honestly.Posted by: daveau | September 11, 2009 2:55 PM
Practical people, those North Dakotans.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | September 11, 2009 3:06 PM
#59 Ms. Crazy Pants
Same here. I've been married 33 years. When people ask how we made it that along, I always tell them "I don't believe in divorce. I believe in murder. And we never had a crawl space until this last house."
Posted by: kamaka | September 11, 2009 3:20 PM
As sure as I am that this particular person doesn't believe divorce should be illegal, sure as shit someone does.
Besides mormons, catholics, muslims and baptists??
Posted by: Gregg | September 11, 2009 3:35 PM
uncle frogy @#135: The Washington Supreme Court had ruled the previous summer (2006) to uphold the state DOMA that there was a "legitimate state interest" in preserving marriage for the purpose of procreation. The point of I-957 was to show the idiocy of that ruling by putting it into statutory form. And yes, sterile couples, elterly couples, post-menopausal women and the like would all be banned from marriage IF the initiative had passed and IF the Court did not immediately strike it down as ridiculous. That was kind of the point.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 11, 2009 4:00 PM
Actually, I wouldn't mind getting the "marriage" thing split into two completely separate things. The current concept is so antiquated, it will take a million little steps to fix it, and by the time we get there it will probably need a million more. Splitting it would solve most of them in one step (yes, I know it's not realistic; I'm just saying)
One being a next-of-kin contract where I can designate one (or multiple, though that's bound to cause drama at least sometimes) person as the person to receive my benefits plus be responsible for me etc. and this could be anyone, i.e. my boyfriend, but also my best friend, my brother, my grandmother, or my niece, none of whome I'd want to "marry" cuz that's icky.
The other being a commitment ceremony performed in whichever way one desires, be it a church wedding, a handfasting ceremony, or a party where everybody gets horribly drunk.
Already, in some countries, the church ceremony is not legally binding. that doesn't stop people from having church weddings and finding them meaningful. they simply take care of the paperwork separately, and then have their "Dream Wedding" with friends and family and fancy clothes and food etc. at the church. no problem.
Posted by: xenithrys | September 11, 2009 4:20 PM
Ideally there would be no laws about marriage. Partners (and children) in relationships (of all kinds) would be protected by the same laws as everyone else: property laws, civil contracts, protections against assault and rape. If they willingly belonged to a church they could sign up for whatever insanity that church promoted; the rest of us would work it out as human beings within civil law. Wouldn't that more closely fit separation of church and state?
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
September 11, 2009 4:32 PM
Thank you, Alyson. My recently resurgent agoraphobia made it a challenge to wander all over the place in the courthouse, but Mina is worth it.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | September 11, 2009 4:38 PM
This is definately a parody, but a funny one all the same. I particularly liked this part;
"John: Sometimes other people need to sacrifice in order to protect my ideas about traditional marriage. It's just a fact of life."
This statement is just so aposite when applied to the thinking of most fundamentalists. I am sure we all recognise echoes in this little gem of the dulcet tones of some of the regular theist 'contributors' to this blog.
Posted by: eric | September 11, 2009 4:46 PM
I like the quote: "sure, divorce happens, but they [your kids] don't need to know that."
I think that encapsulates the fundamentalist mindset. Why bother dealing with reality as long as we can ignore it?
Posted by: Matrim | September 11, 2009 5:10 PM
I'll grant them this: if marriage is indeed sacred (as they claim) this actually makes a lot more sense if you're trying to protect that sanctity. Sure, it's still intrusive and stupid, but at least it makes some measure of sense.
Posted by: Atheistic.ca | September 11, 2009 5:19 PM
Well done! I've always tried to highlight the absolute hypocrasy of the Catholic Church spending a dis-proportionate amount of time condemning homosexual acts. All while quietly ignoring the "sin" of masturbation that is likely common place amongst 1 billion of their 1.1 billion flock.
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
September 11, 2009 5:59 PM
Here's a video of John Marcotte being interviewed by the atheist comedian Keith Lowell Jensen about his proposed proposition to ban divorce.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 11, 2009 6:07 PM
But I don't like my brother's wife. I knew her before my brother met her and I not only never considered marrying her, I never considered dating her.
Posted by: RickD
|
September 11, 2009 6:17 PM
I'm sure Mel Gibson would jump on this bandwagon, if his hypocrisy regarding divorce hadn't been so recently revealed.
Posted by: truthspeaker | September 11, 2009 6:25 PM
So your personal whims are more important than God's Law™?
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
September 11, 2009 6:44 PM
@'Tis Himself: So you'll be pulling out before ejaculation, or not?
*considers taking bets because he's a little bored*
Posted by: AusGC | September 11, 2009 6:53 PM
"All those women trapped in loveless marriages, or dominated by abusive husbands…"
True enough, but would be better phrased as "All those people trapped in loveless marriages, or dominated by abusive partners". Your post unfortunatey reinforces stereotypes of women as victims only and men as uncaring or predatory only.
I'm speaking from experience - which includes years of faithful marriage and good fathering while enduring increasing verbal and emotional abuse. This was followed by vicious character attacks and false allegations of sexual abuse of my own children after I separated from this abusive person. I've now been thorougly alienated from all but one of my children by the persistent abusive behaviour of my now-ex-wife and her church-going family.
Men, fathers, good fathers, get trapped in loveless, abusive relationships too. And we get to watch our abusers portray themselves as heroic single-mothers.
Posted by: kamaka | September 11, 2009 7:12 PM
Men, fathers, good fathers, get trapped in loveless, abusive relationships too. And we get to watch our abusers portray themselves as heroic single-mothers.
You forgot-> A female abusive type is far more likely to get away with portraying themselves as victims than an abusive male.
Posted by: And State | September 11, 2009 7:17 PM
I said "@#63" in #82. I should have said "@#62". Got it?
Posted by: moonkitty | September 11, 2009 7:34 PM
The divorce rate among fundies is higher than average: http://www.adherents.com/largecom/baptist_divorce.html
But does anyone think the targets of this elegant little satire will recognize themselves and realize they've been called out for their hypocrisy? (Heck, some Pharyngulites have missed the point!)
I've got a new cause du jour, and a new hero in John Marcotte.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | September 11, 2009 7:40 PM
Dear Bother Mr Fire @ 103
Thank you for your blessed anagram. As a sheep lover from way back (and also a member of the nation whose smallest child exclaims 'bugger' with every second sentence) I can only conclude that it is a divinely inspired arrangement.
PTL
Smoggy
Posted by: Kevin B | September 11, 2009 10:05 PM
This is not an "Obvious Poe", because that would be an oxymoron.
A Poe is a hoax so perfect that it is indistinguishable from the real thing. If it is obvious, then it's no longer a Poe.
My favorite part of this satire was the three "ads by Google" at the bottom. All were links to divorce lawyers. Now THAT's a Poe. Did he hard-code those ads, or did he let Google choose them based on the subject matter in the page?
Posted by: BigA | September 11, 2009 11:35 PM
Hmm..
Given CA needs $$.
We should tax those who don't have >= 2 kids by 4 years after marriage.
Also like the idea of penalizing batchelorhood (TAX it).
Why stop at making marriage enslavement, make it compulsory.
A
Posted by: Joel | September 12, 2009 5:52 AM
The site's a parody, guys. But it does make a very good point, and I like how some of the commenters are getting into it too. Like this guy:
"As a God-fearing Christian, I’ve always felt a natural affinity to long-standing conservative principles such as limited government involvement in private matters. That’s why I’ve favored banning gay marriage, sodomy, and this brilliant move to ban divorce initiated by women."
Brillaint!
Posted by: Sara | September 12, 2009 9:03 AM
So, if the USians ban masturbation, does it mean that the internet wankery will be banned, too?
Or will the wankers just move to European servers?
I'm just, wondering. On a purely theoretical level.
Posted by: Injun Trouble | September 12, 2009 10:29 AM
If masturbation becomes illegal, that'll give a whole new meaning to cops 'arresting a bunch of jackoffs'.
Posted by: arachnophilia | September 12, 2009 10:40 AM
"obvious poe" oxymoron aside, i did think it was a pretty obvious parody. the "defense of marriage" people aren't actually trying to defend marriage; they're just homophobes. and generally haven't read the bible. the "jesus didn't mention gays, but did mention divorce" point is one we've been making, not them.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 12, 2009 10:46 AM
the "defense of marriage" people aren't actually trying to defend marriage; they're just homophobes.
Exactly. That's where we can see something of a shift in society. While being anti-gay is still "respectable," being virulently anti-gay isn't. So, these bigots try to mask their hatred in "trying to protect marriage." But, they engage in no policy activities that would actually strengthen family life. For example, last week in my social problems course we discussed consumption, advertising, and childhood and talked about how difficult it is for parents because their facing an entire industry and multiple social systems that all see them as barriers to be gotten around. The question I left my students with is, "What can we do to make it easier for parents?" Where are the "pro-family" fucks when it comes to policy and the actual living of family life. They're out trying to make it more difficult for gay families.
Ain't nothing pro-family or pro-marriage about these bigots.
Posted by: Geoffrey of Ballard | September 12, 2009 11:37 AM
The Onion has the flip side covered: "Massachusetts Institutes Mandatory Gay Marriage for All Citizens"
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30475
Posted by: George Warren | September 12, 2009 12:27 PM
I interviewed John Marcotte about his divorce-banning initiative for the ABC TV affiliate in Sacramento.
http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=66761&catid=2
Posted by: John | September 12, 2009 1:19 PM
John Marcotte is a douche! Isn't there anything worthy to argue about anymore?
Posted by: embertine | September 14, 2009 3:52 AM
This is genius! I particularly like this quote:
People who supported Prop 8 weren't trying to take rights away from gays, they just wanted to protect traditional marriage. That's why I'm confident that they will support this initiative, even though this time it will be their rights that are diminished. To not support it would be hypocritical.
Well played, sir, well played.