The Protection Of The Sanctity Of Marriage Act


“The Protection of the Sanctity of Marriage Act” is a proposal for a new bill to be voted on as a proposition for future elections in California.

Its basic clause is that divorce be banned from the law books and become illegal. This is to apply to all marriage contracts that are currently legal in California, as well as to all future marriage contracts. There will be a four month grace period before this law takes effect in order to allow for current divorce proceedings to be completed, as well as to allow for people currently in said contracts to opt out of these marriages (to be titled: The Opt-Out Period). This grace period will allow for divorce proceedings until this to-be-determined effective date. However, all divorce cases must be settled in court by this date or: they will become invalid, the marriage contract will remain intact, and the contractually bound “husband and wife” will continue to be happily married until the stated condition of “death” is met by one or more of the married parties in question. This act will also make out-of-state divorces non-recognizable in California, unless the original marriage contract was made in another state. The citizenry of the great state of California should not and will no longer tolerate the “Las Vegas” divorce.

We sincerely hope that this bill will inspire other states in the union to ratify similar laws in order to protect all of our children, and make the act of marriage wholesome once more. We believe that marriage is an act of love, and that love can only be guided through the heart when accompanied through state contract. Marriage is a contractual pledge of eternal love, which cannot and should not be allowed to be relinquished by the state. It is not a choice: It is forever.

Who would support this bill?

  • A. The church – How can the church possibly condone divorce? Marriage is a holy religious tradition with deep roots in the church itself. The ceremony is wrought with scripture and references to God of how the commitment is a holy and sanctimonious bond. For the church to come out in opposition of this act would essentially amount to blasphemy.
  • B. Gay men and women – Simply said, if the act of marriage is so extremely sanctimonious that it was made to exclude a group which is barely even referred to in the bible, then it should be protected against such subservient and deviant laws such as divorce and alimony. Simply put: homosexual couples cannot be married, and so heterosexual couples cannot be divorced. One must ask which if any minority group would fail to see this as a fair and equitable trade-off for the blatant persecution of their individual and group rights?
  • C. Mothers and children – This is really a bill for the children. It would protect and enforce the family structure, making it illegal for the father to leave the mother, therefore permanently preserving the family unit. After all, the vow says “Till death do us part”. No longer will children have to be torn between parents in psychologically damaging custody battles. Children should above all be protected from the horrible ordeal of divorce. Abusive spouses will of course be given the benefit of the doubt. We believe that a good spanking builds character. And a beating is good for the soul. After all, bruises heal eventually… don’t they?
  • D. Fathers – In an unjust court system the father always seems to get stuck with the child support, even if he wants the kids for himself. But he never seems to get custody of the kids. This will no longer be an issue – there will be no more drawn out custody battles. Also since no legal divorce would be allowed, no longer will men be treated as money machines, paying unfairly half of their estate to a woman who really only married him for that money in the first place. Gold-diggers will be a thing of the past. Pre-nuptials will no longer be needed. It’s wonderful, really!
  • E. Immigration – The easiest way for an immigrant to gain citizenship in this country is to get married to an American. Typically, there is a lot of money involved, usually given to the legal citizen. And more often than not there is a divorce proceeding once the minimum period of time by law for that marriage is reached in order to retain citizenship or green card status. “The Protection of the Sanctity of Marriage Act” would make Americans think twice about unlawfully marrying for money or citizenship, as the commitment would be binding for the rest of their lives. This would also mean they were responsible for that aliens well being and medical expenses for ever and ever and ever. This might slow or even stop what is actually considered illegal immigration into this country; meaning that getting married solely for the act of obtaining citizenship, and not out of love, is a crime.
  • F. The courts – This bill will potentially eliminate thousands of alimony and divorce cases each and every year, and would clear the courts and give them more time for other important litigation, while saving taxpayers millions of dollars. Just think of all the pending murder, theft, and other important cases that would actually have a speedy trial granted by the courts, as is supposed to be afforded according to the U.S. Constitution. Courts are no place for children. Parents, no matter how overbearing and abusive should certainly have custody of their children no matter what the circumstances.
  • G. Married and single people (everyone) – Essentially, it would be hypocritical for anyone in this country to vote no on this bill. Marriage is a contract which should not be nullified or destroyed simply because two people disagree about a few things or a little blood is spilled. It is a binding contract, meaning two people are bound in love whether they like it or not. They signed a contract! It’s time we bring civics back into this country. Imagine what Mrs. Smith would think of her husband if Mr. Smith voted against this bill… Would that mean that he wants the option of divorce to be on the table? Would it mean he didn’t love her anymore, or planned not to in the future? Could he be thinking of reneging on his part of the contract? You see… there is just no need for a divorce option. The aforementioned four-month grace period would all but take care of any reluctant marriages that exist today. And single (unmarried) people certainly wouldn’t be getting married if they weren’t in love, knowing that divorce is not an option anymore. So divorce would obviously not be needed in the future either.

Who would rightfully oppose this bill?

  • A. Divorce Lawyers.
  • B. Non-U.S. Citizens without voting rights.
  • C. Gold-diggers.
  • D. Con artists.

And so in conclusion, the passing of “The Protection of the Sanctity of Marriage Act” would ensure marriage to be a life-long commitment as it was always meant to be. Monetarily, we’ve shown that the savings would be substantial to the government, the judicial system, and the taxpayers, while only displacing an extremely small minority in the law profession, with the possibility of hurting or canceling some daytime television court shows. The pros far outweigh any cons. Also, we believe that the happiness that mandatory contractual marriage would bring to spouses and their children is incalculable. Happiness by rule of law is surely preferable to the auto determination of individuals being allowed the choice or right to shatter the holy, binding contract of marriage for reasons unworthy of such a separation.

We hope that you will see it in your hearts to make this idea come to fruition, bringing on its tails the love and happiness associated with mandatorily binding marriage. To any who might oppose this bill, we can only assume that your deviance must be far too ingrained into your psyche to possibly be qualified for a state granted marriage license in the first place. We believe that makes you un-American, and that the no-fly and terrorist watch lists should include people like you. We believe that you are purposely looking for love in all the wrong places, and we will not stand for the types of malicious anti-marriage activities listed here: dating, kissing, hand-holding in public, scary movies and chick-flicks, singles bars, dance halls, internet chatting, hay rides, and just plain unlicensed lollygagging.

May we all find it in our hearts to be spouses and parents. Thank you for your support.

.

Insincerely,

Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
President/founder: Marriage Ain’t for Homos/Divorce Ain’t for Straights Foundation.

.

((For those who think less than others… this is sarcasm.))

About these ads
Leave a comment

5 Comments

  1. Badger

     /  February 4, 2011

    You know, if you were chained to a woman that takes well over half your income, leaving you destitute and unable to even rent an apartment or afford to feed yourself for well over 20 years (a full-time job nets me a total income of 312 dollars per month after deductions) after being married for only two years, you might not be quite so sarcastic about this act.

    20+ years of misery can have an astonishing change on your outlook.

    Preferably, Alimony could be eliminated (aint happening, your ‘corporate america’ is well aware of the fact that women spend far more money than skinflint men) and men could ‘opt out’ of child support (After all, why should women be the only ones who get to choose whether or not to support a child with abortion laws making their choice easy?) but, failing that, an act like this would at least make it hard as hell for people to justify getting married, and protect thousands of men who haven’t learned yet that Marriage offers them nothing.

    Reply
  2. janice

     /  January 5, 2012

    ahhhh…the sweet smell of globalization and eugenics..

    A publication of the carnegie council
    http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/briefings/data/marriage

    Carnegie and eugenics
    http://hnn.us/articles/1796.html

    This act will be welcomed by the men who’s livlihoods have been destroyed by the corporate courts and the eugenicists will get exactly what they want. No marriages, no children or only ones birthed out of wedlock which the government pedophiles will only be too happy to take care of. Hegelian dialectics or problem, reaction, solution.

    You should watch the “kinsey syndrome” if you haven’t already

    Reply
  3. Ironclad

     /  January 12, 2012

    What this law will promote is more couples opting for defacto relationships. Also, the fact that the only way out of marrige is the death of one partner….lol You think this law will put less stress on the courts… think again…!! The number of homosides will tripple as desperate people try to get out of loveless marriges.

    In a world of unicorns and fairies, love lasts for ever… In the real world. you cannot force people to love each other for ever with a contract. People, drift apart.

    Your bill will causse more issues than it will fix.

    Reply
  1. The Protection Of The Sanctity Of Marriage Act

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,293 other followers

%d bloggers like this: