Daily Show: The Mocking of Marriage Equality Opponents and the Concept of Gay Divorce

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Dreaded Bliss
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
No Gay Out
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Irony in New Hampshire: Two Repeal Proposals "Threaten" Marriage

So remember our great victory in New Hampshire back in June? After a tumultuous ride the state's marriage equality bill passed and the governor signed it into law. Starting January 1 the law will go into effect and same-sex couples will begin marrying in New Hampshire.

Back in November I reported that those who opposed the bill are not giving up and have introduced a repeal. On Friday the original sponsor of the marriage equality bill, Rep. Jim Splaine, posted on Blue Hampshire that the repeal has been given a number: House Bill 1590, "An Act Repealing Same Sex Marriage."

Rep. Splaine says, "It will be sent to the House Judiciary Committee, where after a public hearing HB 436 [marriage equality bill] had been reported out with 'no recommendation' after a 10-10 tie. Since then, however, we have picked up at least two members of that committee who now support marriage equality."

He goes on to say encouragingly, "We can beat this. We already have had some Legislative meetings to lay out our strategy, and we will be having more."

New Hampshire HB 1590 - An ACT Repealing Same-sex Marriage

You can check on the status of this bill here.

Here's where the irony comes in - two New Hampshire House representatives are introducing a repeal to the 200-year-old state law that makes adultery a crime. Punishments once included standing on the gallows for an hour with a noose around the neck, 39 lashes, a year in jail or a fine of 100 pounds - but these have been reduced to a $1,200 fine.

"We shouldn't be regulating people's sex lives and their love lives," state Rep. Timothy Horrigan and bill sponsor told the AP. "This is one area the state government should stay out of people's bedrooms."

I couldn't agree more. But then his colleagues are at the same time trying to do just that by introducing a repeal to a law that keeps government out of same-sex couples' bedrooms. In other words, his colleagues want government in people's bedrooms. Or at least, in gay and lesbian bedrooms. And they don't get the irony in that their actions threaten existing marriages. Yes, that's right - these people are threatening the institute of marriage!

I agree with the repeal of the law that punishes adultery - it should be left up to the civil courts to enforce divorce laws which protect the rights of married couples to separate. But isn't it rather embarrassing that within this same body of legislators some want to take these rights away from other citizens they represent? Because with the right to marry also comes the right to divorce.

I'm not too concerned about the marriage equality repeal - the sponsors have a reputation of leaning to the right just a tad, and they showed their true colors back in June when the marriage bill passed.

But you would think that this would put marriage equality opponents in a pickle. Kind of like in California, where a satirical divorce ban has been introduced to "protect traditional marriage." But you would be wrong.

Kevin Smith, executive director of the conservative Cornerstone Policy Research, said, "Even though this criminal law probably is not enforced right now and probably has not been enforced for some time, I think it's important to have a public policy statement that says generally or in all situations adultery is not a good thing. And I think, by repealing that statute, you're essentially diminishing the harmful effects of adultery."

Riiight. Because it's kept people from divorcing this whole time, protecting those traditional marriages.

Those who oppose marriage equality must really think New Hampshire is the den of iniquity, ripping to shreds traditional marriage. In one year they have legalized same-sex marriage which degrades what marriage is truly all about, and now they want to give "traiditional" couples an easy way out of those "til death to us part" vows! God forbid, what's next?! Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Makes your skin crawl, doesn't it?

VIDEO: The Divorce Ban - 'Til Death Do Us Part May Be An Actuality in California

Remember this? Well, the signature gathering has begun. As well as the ads . . .





Check out the Facebook Page and RescueMarriage.org

VIDEO: Plaintiff in Texas Same-Sex Divorce Case, "I Don't Think the End of Anyone's Marriage Can Be Celebrated As a Victory."

The plaintiff, in what is now the famous same-sex divorce case in Texas in which a judge ruled that the state's ban on marriage equality is unconstitutional, speaks to Good Morning America Weekend's Bill Weir.

Only going by the initials JB, he says, "After ten months some of it is relief, some of it is sadness, and some of it is overwhelmed because then the floodgates opened again...I don't think the end of anyone's marriage can be celebrated as a victory."

JB also expresses frustration with LGBT legal groups who opposed his lawsuit but are now jumping on the bandwagon.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry Believes State's Same-Sex Marriage Ban Will Hold

UPDATE 2: Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council throws a tantrum over the ruling.

UPDATE: Read legal commentary on the ruling.

In reaction to Thursday's ruling by District Judge Tena Callahan that Texas' ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, Gov. Rick Perry, who pushed for the amendment in 2005, responded with confidence that the ban will weather the challenge.

"Texas voters and lawmakers have repeatedly affirmed the view that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman," he said in a prepared statement. "I believe the ruling is flawed and should be appealed. I am confident that Attorney General Abbott and the will of Texas voters will prevail, and traditional marriage will be upheld in our state."

The case in front of Judge Callahan was whether or not Texas would hear divorce proceeding on two men who legally married in Massachusetts in 2006 and had been together for 11 years.

"My client is ready to get on with his life," Dallas attorney Peter Schulte said, who represents one of the men who will only be identified as J.B. He argued that his client has the right to divorce under the U.S. Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Abbott dismissed the argument, saying saying the clause "does not require Texas courts to recognize or give legal effect to marriages between persons of the same sex under the laws of other jurisdictions."

If the ruling were to stand, it would be a break from recent decisions elsewhere.

The Dallas Morning News reports:

In March 2003, a Texas court became the first one outside Vermont to grant the dissolution of a civil union. The judge reversed his decision after a challenge by Abbott, a Republican."

------

In a court filing, Schulte challenged the state's opposition, saying its arguments were an attempt to "mislead this court in an effort to pursue the attorney general's own political agenda."

He cited wording in the state Family Code that "the law of this state applies to persons married elsewhere who are domiciled in this state. And he noted that "Black's Law Dictionary defines a person as a 'human being.'"

It was the section of the Family Code the denied recognition of same-sex unions and the benefits of law that Callahan deemed unconstitutional.

Shulte wrote that the Texas "is obviously confused or worried that the court, by granting this divorce, would somehow open the floodgates for same-sex marriages to occur in the state. A divorce clearly ends a marriage.

"If a divorce is granted in the case, the court is NOT creating, recognizing or validating a marriage between persons of the same sex; rather the effect of a divorce immediately ends a marriage, which furthers the 'public policy' of this state as written in the Family Code."

District Judge Strikes Down Texas Ban on Marriage Equality

With the right to marry also comes the right to divorce.

Today, Dallas state District Judge Tena Callahan granted a divorce to two legally married gay men, declaring that the state's bans on same-sex marriage violates the constitutional guarantee to equal protection under the law.

Texas has a voter approved same-sex marriage ban from 2005 and also has a Family Code barring such recognition.

The Dallas Morning News reports:

[Judge Callahan] denied the attorney general’s intervention and said her court "has jurisdiction to hear a suit for divorce filed by persons legally married in another jurisdiction."

"This is huge news. We’re ecstatic," said Dallas attorney Peter Schulte, who represents the man who filed the divorce. The man, identified in court documents as J.B., asked that he and his former partner not be identified.

Attorney General Greg Abbott vowed to appeal and “to defend the traditional definition of marriage that was approved by Texas voters.

“The laws and constitution of the State of Texas define marriage as an institution involving one man and one woman. Today's ruling purports to strike down that constitutional definition — despite the fact that it was recently adopted by 75 per cent of Texas voters.”

More to come as story develops.

Sacramento Satirist Files Initiative to Ban Divorce in California as "Logical Extension of Prop 8"

A married father of two in Sacramento has begun the process of submitting a 2010 initiative to ban divorce in California.

John Marcotte, 37 and a satirist, calls the proposition "California Marriage Protection Act" and claims he has a grassroot volunteers standing by to gather signatures once the language is approved by the Attorney General.

"It's actually what I think is a logical extension of Prop 8, which was the California Marriage Protection Act. (My initiative) would protect traditional marriages by banning divorce," he explained to KXTV/News10.

The campaign's web site, RescueMarriage.org shows a couple held together by a chain with the caption "You said 'till death do us part. You're not dead yet."

Cockeyed had an exclusive interview with Marcotte.

Rob Cockerham: John Marcotte. You've filed a petition with the Secretary of State, in an effort to get a voter's initative on the California 2010 ballot.

John Marcotte: Yes. Filed the paperwork on September 1. It's the "2010 California Marriage Protection Act." I am trying to ban divorce in the state of California.

RC: Ok. So your act, if it became law, would make marriage undissolvable.

John: Exactly. The only exception would be if the marriage was "voidable" -- if you married an 8-year-old, you don't get to keep her. She goes back on the shelf. You can't marry the mentally incapacitated, etc.

RC: Ah, ok, so most normal marriages would be irreversable.

John: 99.99% of all marriages would be set in stone. It's a return to traditional values.

RC: Wow, that is amazing. Could it really happen? What steps remain to make this initiative into a valid, enforced law?

John: I am trying to extend the good work done with Proposition 8 last year. It could really happen. The United States has not always had divorce as an institution the way we do now. As a ballot initiative it bypasses the legislature and the governor. It's the will of the people made law.

-----------

RC: Are you going to hit the streets collecting signatures for the initiative?

John: We're going to set up a table in front of Wal*Mart and ask people to sign a petition to protect traditional marriage. We're going to interview them about why they thing traditional marriage is important, and then we'll tell them that we are trying to ban divorce.

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.

We're also going to collect signatures in front of "Faces," the largest gay nightclub in Sacramento.

Image by Cockeyed.

Rachel Maddow: "Gay Marriage Is a 'Defense of Marriage Act.'"

Yesterday on her show, Rachel Maddow points out that after five years of marriage equality, Massachusetts' divorce rate has dropped to pre-1940 levels, retaining the lowest divorce rate in the nation.