protecting marriage

It’s Not Like Supporters of California’s Ban On Divorce Are Divorcee-Phobic

We’re going to die — DIE! — if supporters of the Marriage Protection Act, which hilariously bans divorce for heterosexual couples, makes it on to the ballot in 2010, and Love Honor Cherish’s repeal of Prop 8 does not. Because while we’re all for John Marcotte’s little experiment to see if can point how how ridiculous it is to “protect” marriage, we’d still much rather have our own marriage rights than see him prove his point. But also, we’d love to see him prove his point. And get Maggie Gallagher’s signature on here.

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #california #divorce #johnmarcotte stories and more


  • AlanInSLCutah

    OMG, that was hillarious. I love it and am sharing that with everyone I know. :)

  • Mike L

    That preist is hot. And OMG this was hilarious :)

  • Sean

    Just registered to vote in CA a couple days ago…heeeheee…

  • Aaron in Honolulu

    This was too funny. lol

    “To me this is not about hating divorcees, or their lifestyle. Like personally, I am not divorcee-phobic. If we pass the marriage protection act, it won’t even take away any rights that divorcees currently have… except the right to be divorced.”

    She could have not put it any better X)

  • bryan

    This is Amazing! Keep up the good work!

  • Lukas P.

    A M E N! Here’s the Real Way to protect “traditional marriage!” End the scourge of divorce, and remove the secret “escape clause” in the vows and Voila!–marriage is now safeguarded.

    Brilliant tactic — I hope other states get similar movements up and running. I can’t wait to see the billboards and signs on buses now.

  • Darren

    Oh, don’t get me started. I emailed this to everyone I knew last month. This is a bit long and don’t know where I found the time to do this. But here goes….

    In thrilled response to the recent NY senate vote, where all of our
    enlightened Republican senators and eight of our Democrat senators
    voted against gay marriage, BRAVO! And by “Bravo” I don’t mean the
    gay-leaning cable network! By virtue of the fact that most gay couples
    are DINKS (double income no kids) and contribute more to society than
    they ever receive, those of us who are normal heterosexual couples
    with lots of children gain considerably from this. As we should,
    because we’re normal and natural! And isn’t that enough justification…
    “normal” and “natural?” Hopefully we won’t be called-out on the
    financial inequity and thievery of it all. And because we all agree
    that it is the senate’s option to gauge the validity of relationships
    and determine who has the right to be supported by this holy
    institution and who doesn’t, I have thought about a list of other
    groups that you should vote “no” to during the next senate go-round.
    This list is as follows…

    1) Naturists: People who participate in this lifestyle really
    shouldn’t be permitted to destroy the purity and sanctity of marriage.
    And because there are multiple penisis and/or multiple vajajays among
    one another, it’s really no better than what the homos do. It’s
    unnatural. Well, I mean, it’s totally natural but it’s not what we
    want to be natural. I’m going to add “Swingers” to this list because
    they are like really fucked-up hardcore naturists. Adding a woman into
    the mix doesn’t fool us. It’s totally gay in spite of the addition of
    a woman! And since we really don’t like the gays, we need to cull the
    naturists together onto a big list and nullify their marriages.

    2) Childless Couples: The purpose of protecting marriage and keeping
    undesirables, like homos, from getting married is to support life and,
    in turn, support the continuation of society by having lots of babies.
    It goes without saying that if you have no intention of having
    children, you are weird. So you may not get married and you may not
    receive the benefits of legitimate couples. If you do not bear a child
    within five years of marriage, the senate will revoke your marriage
    privileges. Additionally, these newly single individuals might be
    responsible for repayment of taxes associated with falsely claiming
    “married” on taxes during this period of gross deception.

    3) Infertile Couples: See above. Any marriage be nullified if and when
    it is determined either of the two within the married couple are
    infertile. It’s a bummer and it’s unfair, but it’s all about principal
    and protecting the purity and the contrived perception of marriage.

    4) Couples over the age of 45: Old people shouldn’t be getting married
    when they’re so wrinkly. And thinking about an old man’s rusty coin
    slot ass and an old women’s deflated balloons is just gross. It’s
    unnatural. Anyway, with points 2 and 3 above, it’s already covered.

    5) Ugly Couples: While technically this group “can” procreate and
    continue to contribute society, they shouldn’t because uglies are
    undesirable. And I don’t want to support their lifestyle choice to
    create an ugly baby. Furthermore, it’s not fair to the child who,
    because they’re ugly, might end up being poor and they might have to
    tap-into the tax base provided by pure, honorable and attractive hetro
    couples. More elaboration on “poorness” below in #12.

    6) Dull-Normal Couples: People with an IQ of under 70 really don’t
    contribute to society enough. Plus, they do weird things that aren’t
    normal. And the senate’s constituency doesn’t go for weird. Dumb
    people are actually a real pain in the ass for the rest of us. They
    hold up traffic and they watch a lot of daytime TV. So I would like to
    revoke their marriage privileges. We just won’t tell them and they
    won’t know the difference because they’ll be too busy having babies in
    dumpsters or watching Jerry Springer.

    7) Crippled, Blind or Midget Couples: C’mon, they already get the best
    parking spaces. They can’t expect us to allow them to get married like
    the rest of us! So maybe if we try being mean and ostracizing them
    they will just go away. That generally works.

    8) Mixed Race Couples: It’s unnatural and icky to think about a
    Mexican hooking up with a Jew. The combination of beans and Crohn’s
    disease is completely incompatible. All citizens should be categorized
    in very broad politically correct segments that may not cross-breed.
    The one exception is for good looking Asian women; They may marry
    within the non-Jew Caucasian Male segment… because white men love
    Asian women and they make great looking offspring. And that pleases
    the Senate majority.

    9) Divorced Couples: They’ve already proven that they don’t respect
    the sanctity of marriage. So f*ck ‘em.

    10) Children of Divorced Parents: Let’s just nip it in the bud and end
    this destructive pattern.

    11) Adulterers: Have trampled on civilized society’s idea of what
    marriage ought to be. Like number 9, they’ve proven to be unworthy of

    12) Poor people: This is all really about money and withholding
    benefits from people we don’t like, just like the gays. I say let’s
    just remove poor people from the list of those deserving marriage
    privileges, and here’s why… It is necessary to contribute to an
    economy that will provide an education and the supporting
    infrastructure necessary to raise your child (my children) and other
    tax and estate benefits that we want proper, straight, god fearing
    hetro couples to receive. Those who cannot contribute to this economy
    sufficiently to support this may not get married. Anyone unable to
    provide a minimum of one 3,000 sq/ft home on a cul-de-sac to provide
    shelter for themselves and their family, may not get married.
    Furthermore, marriage candidates must have the financial resources to
    purchase a tan or white Toyota Camry SE every four years. If not,
    marriage candidates are not qualified to raise children properly, or
    support society (i.e. the kind of people who behave as I wish) and
    therefore do not meet the criteria for marriage. Struggling families
    are undesirable to those of “us” who fit the profile of pure and
    prosperous hetro married bliss.

    13) People That Don’t Go To Church: Isn’t this obvious? If you don’t
    support our lord, you don’t support the idea of marriage that we
    intend to foster with your tax dollars. For some reason, God-fearing
    people feel comfortable throwing God’s name around and using religion
    as a shield to reinforce own bigotry. So why not continue to take
    advantage of these fundamentalist whacko’s for our political agenda

    14) Fatties: Really now. Besides the gays, what’s more disgusting? All
    the sounds and sweaty suction noises during procreation are almost as
    bad as the image of a couple of nancyboys. And for me to be
    comfortable of the whole marriage thing, I have to be satisfied with
    the images of sex that other people are having. Fatties weren’t born
    fat and, unlike the uglies in line 5, fatness was a choice just like
    being gay. So just don’t be fat and then your desirability will
    increase in the eyes of the rest of “us.” And badda bing… fatties will
    no longer be fat and may get married! We (senate) are taking a gamble
    here, because the children of ex-fatties might still end up fat. But
    the US Senate is a generous and forgiving power, and we are offering
    the benefit of the doubt. However, should the weight of the ex-fatty
    increase after the marriage ceremony, the marriage will be voided
    faster than you can say “extra sprinkles!”

    15) Marriages Resulting From Online Dating: What is so wrong with
    getting her drunk in a bar or pouring beer on her at a wet t-shirt
    contest during spring break? Online dating is so impersonal unnatural
    and cold. And if people have to do it this way, they are probably
    undesirable in all sorts of ways. So it’s a “no” for anyone with an
    online dating profile because of the Ugly clause stated in #5. If you
    are on the prowl for a new partner, just hire some interns.

    16) Marriages of any couple who have lived any “unnatural” lifestyle.
    For the “unnatural” argument to hold water, let’s be consistent.
    Besides the gays, this includes anyone who has had an MRI, uses a cell
    phone, wears corrective lenses, has air conditioning and indoor
    plumbing, has had dental work, breast implants, takes Viagra or
    aspirin, uses electricity, takes a multivitamin, eats processed foods,
    sent an email, mailed a package overnight, has flown on an airplane,
    drives a car, drinks out of a plastic container, has a blog or
    website, uses nail polish or colors their hair. Because what’s
    “natural” is always the barometer for what’s sensible.

    So, my honorable senate, please consider my pleas to revoke marriage
    to all of the above groups. Because if you’re able to revoke the human
    rights for one group, take (steal) their tax dollars without providing
    any benefits, why not revoke the marriage “privileges” of bunch of
    other people that we don’t respect?


Comments are closed.