Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Archive for May 1st, 2010

California, Protecting Marriages, (unless void or voidable….)

leave a comment »

The idea I guess being to give us more interesting headlines, and fewer deaths…Less real drama…

You have to get the Beauty of this — it’s the simplicity.  Should this come to pass, I predict that no one is going to get married from henceforth. …. for any reason whatsoever.  So maybe it’s a healthy “jolt to the system…” in that regard.

This is California, 2010, where there’s war over whether or not marriage requires differences in (sexual) anatomy, or not . . . . .

And we all know that war is good for SOMEONE’s business.   If  you wish to email this “joker” to find out whether he’s in earnest, the address, handwritten on the image, says “Please direct all correspondence to John@badmouth.net.”

California 2010 Marriage Protection Act

This takes the Healthy Marriage Responsible Fatherhood idea to a WHOLE new level — once in, no way out unless the marriage is declared null or void.

Guess what phrase I was looking up when I ran across this . . . . . . .

Section 7.6 is added to Article I of the California Constitution: 

No party to any marriage shall be restored to the state of unmarried person during the lifetime of the other person unless the marriage is void or voidable as set forth under Part 2 of Division 6 under the Family Code.

This may be (just joking) why, you can find under this logo and at this California Attorney General’s site:

10-0001 PDF logo [PDF 16937 kb / 160 pg] Title and Summary Issued on March 03, 2010 PDF logo [PDF 71 kb / 1 pg] REWRITES THE ENTIRE STATE CONSTITUTION. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

The logo on the main page states,

“With Liberty and Justice under law.”

It just forgot to say “for whom” and “by whom.”

Written by Let's Get Honest

May 1, 2010 at 3:23 pm

%d bloggers like this: