Since Proposition 8 passed in California, Americans can now breathe a collective sigh of relief that traditional marriage has been protected and homosexuality will disappear forever. It is a tremendous victory for parents who don't like having to explain uncomfortable issues to their children. The proponents of Prop 8 ran a highly organized campaign, funded by several well respected Christian leaders and organizations including James Dobson's "Focus on the Family" and the Mormon Church, a group that has always been steadfastly opposed to non-traditional marriage (except for "plural marriage" which was sanctioned and practiced by church founder Joseph Smith, whose revelation on plural marriage is now canonized as scripture by the Mormon church, but that was a long time ago so shut up!)
Proponents of traditional marriage believe that it is a sacred institution between one man and one woman that began in the Book of Genesis. The same romantic tradition that started in a utopian garden with Adam and Eve, continues to this day exactly as it was then (with the exception of the talking snake). However, as a straight man living in California, who is happily married to a woman, my question is this: does Prop 8 go far enough to protect the institution of marriage? The simple answer is "no." As concerned citizens, what can we ban next that is even more harmful to traditional marriage? What right can we eliminate that causes more marriages to end than anything else? The answer, quite simply, is divorce; and since so many big-hearted Christians have shown themselves to be interested in protecting traditional marriage, I hereby call on James Dobson, the Mormon Church and every other religious and conservative political leader and organization in America to support me in my effort to get a new marriage proposition on the 2010 California ballot. A proposition that takes the protection of marriage one step further.
Here it is in a nutshell: I propose a constitutional amendment that would make any marriage that takes place in a church or other house of worship irreversible; and criminalizes divorce for any man or woman married in a religious institution. People married at city hall, their back yards or any other secular setting are exempt from this law (unless the ceremony is presided over by a minister, priest, etc.).
Since these pious individuals have taken such a strong stand in defense of marriage, an institution they believe to be more religious than civil, then I cannot see any reason why they would oppose this proposition. Marriage is a sacred and holy contract entered into between one man, one woman, Almighty God and the Secretary of State's office; how can we let something like divorce threaten its integrity?
You may think that this is a joke. I assure you, it is not. It is long past time for people who insist on imposing their divisive religious beliefs on other people, to actually live by those beliefs themselves. If marriage is so important to them, then surely they will have no problem supporting this measure with their time, money and vote. I will be filing paperwork with the California board of elections (or whoever you have to file paperwork with, I haven't checked it out yet), to start a petition to get this proposition on the November 2010 ballot in California. If they want marriage to be a religious institution, defined by the church and protected by the government, I'll do whatever I can to make that happen. The stakes are just too high.
When I have everything worked out, I will post the details on how you can get involved and help me in preserving traditional Christian marriage.