Banning Divorce = Ensuring Fit Parents

We've been busy here getting things in order and preparing for a 2010 initiative, so we've been quiet for a while trying to fine-tune the legalities of out effort.  Apologies to our followers for not being more timely with our communication.  In the meantime, however, it is refreshing to know that yet another organization has the welfare of California's children at heart as well.

The 2010 Marriage Protection Act 

On October 23rd, California Secretary of State Debra Bowen approved an initiative for signature gathering, which if passed, will ban divorce in California.  Over the next 150 days, the proponents of this effort must gather 694,354 signatures to qualify for a state-wide ballot.  

The text is simple and to the point:

Section 1: Title.  This act shall be known as the "2010 California Marriage Protection Act"

Section 2: Section 7.6 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:

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

At first glance, this effort seems to be a parody.  However, this effort is indeed a real, citizen-based effort to protect marriage so that children have a stable, secure environment in which they can flourish - one of the basic tenets of OUR OWN effort. 

 

The economic argument is compelling: $4.8 billion is spent on divorce in the State of California each year.  Can you imagine what would happen for our children (and our future) if that money was spent to educate, evaluate and license a potential parent?

We encourage you to support the 2010 Marriage Protection Act efforts.  If you see someone gathering signatures for this effort, please do not hesitate to sign the petition.  Your signature is one step closer to providing a better environment for our children. 

  

With six you get eggroll

But what about eight?

If there was ever a national example as to why a parental fitness act should be enacted, it is the story of Nadya Suleman.  For those readers who are not familiar with Ms. Suleman's story, she is the woman who gave birth to octuplets - after taking fertility drugs and after having six (yes, six) other children.

Please check out this article for detailed information

Had The Parental Fitness Act already been a law, would she have been able to have had the children?  Would she be declared financially fit?  Probably not.  And what about psychologically fit?  Well, we all know the answer to that one.

What will happen to these 14 children?  What kind of stability can such an environment provide?  And just as important, why should taxpayers foot the bill for someone who is clearly not working for the best interests of her children?  For anyone outside of California, the state is in a fiscal emergency, facing a multi-billion dollar deficit, Medi-Cal enrollees are capped, and the Governor today announced the possible layoffs of 10,000 state workers.

Being a responsible parent means not only being responsible for one's children, but being a responsible member of the community as well.  Clearly Ms. Suleman is neither, but the reality is she is not the only one.  There are many people having children who can not afford them and rely on taxpayer assistance.

We're not talking about the family that falls on hard times.  Our objection is that in this case - this specific case - there was a complete disregard for the welfare of the children and the community at large.

Kaiser Permanente's actions also raise a serious question, albeit for a tangential discussion.  What would happen to a healthcare provider who assisted in the delivery of a child to an individual or couple who was not licensed under TPFA?  In Ms. Suleman's case, Kaiser willingly billed Medi-Cal for the delivery, which will be thousands and thousands of dollars.  In this case, the healthcare provider was also acting irresponsibly.

Again let us say we are not trying to impede the fundamental right of people to parent a child.  However, in a situation like Ms. Suleman's, is there a more convincing argument to license potential parents?

California's children deserve a reasonable environment.

Support TPFA so that the children get the security they deserve.