Skip to content

Really want to protect the sanctity of marriage?

What’s the number one threat to marriage? Gays? Hah! Clearly, the biggest threat by far to marriage is divorce. In the USA, 48% of all marriages end in divorce. Not to mention the terrible things that divorce does to children. So if you really want to save marriage (and unless you hate families) the solution is simple:

Ban Divorce.

Why not? If we can ban gay marriage, why can’t we ban divorce? Unfortunately, groups that claim to support marriage are too chicken. Ron Prentice, the director of the California Family Council, says that everyone would like to see fewer divorces, but making them illegal would be “impractical”. The California Family Council led the fight to ban gay marriage in California, so you might think they wouldn’t let details like “practicality” stand in the way of fighting to protect families.

So it falls on the capable shoulders of John Marcotte, who wants to put a measure on the ballot next to ban divorce in California. Being a comedian, Marcotte’s instinct for irony helped him realize that if banning gay marriage was so important to protecting the sanctity of marriage, that voters should have no problem banning divorce.

Incidentally, Marcotte’s website,, has some interesting things to say about the health care debate. Like:

Well reasoned health-care policy can only be reached through the careful application of shouting. Shouting masks the mind-control techniques favored by secular death-panel advocates everywhere.

UPDATE: The more I think about it, the more I believe this proposed new law against divorce doesn’t go far enough. After all, if you ban divorce then some people won’t get married in the first place and will just live together. We can’t have that. The real solution is to outlaw people living together, unless they are married or part of a legal family. I mean, California went to all the trouble of banning gay marriage, but did that cause any gay couples to stop living together in (double) sin? No way! So we have to ban everyone who is not married or is not part of a family from living together. That is the only real solution.



  1. Sammy wrote:

    I agree with your sentiment here, but I think the divorce “rate” figure always thrown around is inaccurate. For every two NEW marriages there is about one divorce. But that’s of existing marriages, and includes the multiple time marriage losers.

    I don’t believe there’s been a proper study of how many actual new marriages end up in divorce, but the unofficial number I’ve heard (sorry, no source available) is closer to 25% – 40%.

    Tuesday, December 1, 2009 at 3:21 pm | Permalink
  2. Iron Knee wrote:

    It doesn’t matter what the actual number is. How are any divorces at all acceptable? What about the sanctity of marriage?

    Tuesday, December 1, 2009 at 3:51 pm | Permalink
  3. Sammy wrote:

    Oh, I hear you. I was just nitpicking on the stat, which I’ve long found to be dubious. As for your actual point, I can’t find an argument.

    Tuesday, December 1, 2009 at 5:13 pm | Permalink
  4. Iron Knee wrote:

    Seriously, I’m not sure what statistic you are looking for. The given number is the number of marriages that end in divorce (as opposed to the death of one of the spouses). So yes, if you have been previously married (and divorced) and you get married again and stay married, then that counts as a 50% divorce rate (one divorce out of two marriages). Are you looking for the number of first time marriages that end in divorce? That would be more difficult to determine. How do you account for couples where one of them has been married (and divorced) previously?

    For the purpose of a discussion about the “sanctity of marriage” I think the number of marriages that end in divorce is the appropriate statistic.

    Tuesday, December 1, 2009 at 5:50 pm | Permalink
  5. And when only one of two people can get health care (and has spousal benefits) we end up with people marrying just to get the second person health care.

    Don’t think it happens? It does. Marriage of convenience just to make it so one of the two can get to a d*** doc.

    Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 6:37 am | Permalink
  6. Anonymous wrote:

    Two Obese People can not marry
    Two people with IQs under 100 can not marry
    Two smokers can not marry

    Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 12:56 pm | Permalink
  7. Bert and/or Ernie wrote:

    Forcing people to marry just because they live together isn’t sufficient, either. What if people didn’t have kids.

    Let’s go back to pre-arranged marriages at birth. That should do the trick.

    Friday, December 4, 2009 at 5:13 pm | Permalink