"Bride", "Groom" rejected on marriage license in Calif

Little-Acorn

Little-Acorn

New member
When I first saw this article, I thought I was reading The Onion. It's the kind of completely silly thing they would publish in their usual joking style.

But it wasn't.

Just proves the point once again: No matter how ridiculous something seems, if you take the liberal agenda to its "logical" conclusion, it's probably exactly what you'll get. And they are actually, deliberately enacting this stuff and giving it the force of law.

----------------------------------------------------

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=74768

California bans 'brides,' 'grooms'
License rejected for couple seeking traditional marriage

by Chelsea Schilling
Posted: September 08, 2008
9:05 pm Eastern

ROSEVILLE, Calif. – "Brides" and "grooms" are no longer allowed to marry in the State of California.

That privilege is only extended to individuals who allow themselves to be called "Party A" and "Party B" on marriage licenses.

Pastor Doug Bird of Abundant Life Fellowship in Roseville, Calif., was alarmed to find the state now rejects the traditional terms after he officiated his first marriage ceremony last week following the California Supreme Court decision to overturn Proposition 22.

The couple had written the words "bride" and "groom" next to "Party A" and "Party B" because they wanted to be legally recognized as husband and wife.

However, the Placer County marriage license was denied.

"I received back the license and a letter from the Placer County Clerk/Recorder stating that the license 'does not comply with California State registration laws,'" Bird said in a statement from the Pacific Justice Institute.

It was an "unacceptable alteration," the County Recorder's Office claimed the State Office of Vital Records determined.

"What's next?" Bird wrote in a Sept. 4 letter. "Will the State of California force [ministers] to use the terms "Party A" and "Party B" in the ceremony itself?"

In a 4-3 decision, California's high court declared that legal definitions of marriage as a union between a man and a woman were unconstitutional. Since the ruling, the generic designations have been added to legal documents.

Pacific Justice Institute President Brad Dacus said voters must change the state constitution by voting on the marriage amendment in November if they wish to preserve the traditional meaning of marriage.

"Unless Proposition 8 is passed, heterosexual couples will be forced to wed out of the state if they wish to be officially identified as bride and groom or husband and wife." He said in a statement. "This is a major slap in the face for traditional marriage."
 
See this is why the state should get out of the marriage game. Let Churches created their own official documents and the state would recognize it as valid. The State can say marriage is only between 2 people if they want, they can place age limits on the parties etc, but who the parties are are none of the states business.
 
You know, there are a few million middle class families who have no idea how they are going to pay their mortgage, energy bills & college tuition next year....
 
Little-Acorn said:
When I first saw this article, I thought I was reading The Onion. It's the kind of completely silly thing they would publish in their usual joking style.

But it wasn't.

Just proves the point once again: No matter how ridiculous something seems, if you take the liberal agenda to its "logical" conclusion, it's probably exactly what you'll get. And they are actually, deliberately enacting this stuff and giving it the force of law.

----------------------------------------------------

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=74768

California bans 'brides,' 'grooms'
License rejected for couple seeking traditional marriage

by Chelsea Schilling
Posted: September 08, 2008
9:05 pm Eastern

ROSEVILLE, Calif. – "Brides" and "grooms" are no longer allowed to marry in the State of California.

That privilege is only extended to individuals who allow themselves to be called "Party A" and "Party B" on marriage licenses.

Pastor Doug Bird of Abundant Life Fellowship in Roseville, Calif., was alarmed to find the state now rejects the traditional terms after he officiated his first marriage ceremony last week following the California Supreme Court decision to overturn Proposition 22.

The couple had written the words "bride" and "groom" next to "Party A" and "Party B" because they wanted to be legally recognized as husband and wife.

However, the Placer County marriage license was denied.

"I received back the license and a letter from the Placer County Clerk/Recorder stating that the license 'does not comply with California State registration laws,'" Bird said in a statement from the Pacific Justice Institute.

It was an "unacceptable alteration," the County Recorder's Office claimed the State Office of Vital Records determined.

"What's next?" Bird wrote in a Sept. 4 letter. "Will the State of California force [ministers] to use the terms "Party A" and "Party B" in the ceremony itself?"

In a 4-3 decision, California's high court declared that legal definitions of marriage as a union between a man and a woman were unconstitutional. Since the ruling, the generic designations have been added to legal documents.

Pacific Justice Institute President Brad Dacus said voters must change the state constitution by voting on the marriage amendment in November if they wish to preserve the traditional meaning of marriage.

"Unless Proposition 8 is passed, heterosexual couples will be forced to wed out of the state if they wish to be officially identified as bride and groom or husband and wife." He said in a statement. "This is a major slap in the face for traditional marriage."
Click to expand...

They scribbled something on a form and ruined it. This is not "disallowing" being a bride and a groom, you fucktard. You can call yourself a bride and a groom all you want. Just don't fuck up state documents.
 
Socrtease said:
See this is why the state should get out of the marriage game. Let Churches created their own official documents and the state would recognize it as valid. The State can say marriage is only between 2 people if they want, they can place age limits on the parties etc, but who the parties are are none of the states business.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

The government should be out of the marriage business all together. Leave them to the religious organizations. Should the government wish to provide tax benefits, inheritance rights etc... to couples... then all couples should be entitled to apply for a cival union that would provide said benefits.

If gay couples wish to be "married" as well as having a cival union then they can find a religious group that supports their ability to do so. If they cannot find one, then they can either accept the fact that current religious groups do not "accept" gay marriage and move on... OR they can start their own religious organization that DOES support gay marriage.

Either way... get the government out of marriage completely.
 
Little-Acorn said:
When I first saw this article, I thought I was reading The Onion. It's the kind of completely silly thing they would publish in their usual joking style.

But it wasn't.

Just proves the point once again: No matter how ridiculous something seems, if you take the liberal agenda to its "logical" conclusion, it's probably exactly what you'll get. And they are actually, deliberately enacting this stuff and giving it the force of law.

----------------------------------------------------

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=74768

California bans 'brides,' 'grooms'
License rejected for couple seeking traditional marriage

by Chelsea Schilling
Posted: September 08, 2008
9:05 pm Eastern

ROSEVILLE, Calif. – "Brides" and "grooms" are no longer allowed to marry in the State of California.

That privilege is only extended to individuals who allow themselves to be called "Party A" and "Party B" on marriage licenses.

Pastor Doug Bird of Abundant Life Fellowship in Roseville, Calif., was alarmed to find the state now rejects the traditional terms after he officiated his first marriage ceremony last week following the California Supreme Court decision to overturn Proposition 22.

The couple had written the words "bride" and "groom" next to "Party A" and "Party B" because they wanted to be legally recognized as husband and wife.

However, the Placer County marriage license was denied.

"I received back the license and a letter from the Placer County Clerk/Recorder stating that the license 'does not comply with California State registration laws,'" Bird said in a statement from the Pacific Justice Institute.

It was an "unacceptable alteration," the County Recorder's Office claimed the State Office of Vital Records determined.

"What's next?" Bird wrote in a Sept. 4 letter. "Will the State of California force [ministers] to use the terms "Party A" and "Party B" in the ceremony itself?"

In a 4-3 decision, California's high court declared that legal definitions of marriage as a union between a man and a woman were unconstitutional. Since the ruling, the generic designations have been added to legal documents.

Pacific Justice Institute President Brad Dacus said voters must change the state constitution by voting on the marriage amendment in November if they wish to preserve the traditional meaning of marriage.

"Unless Proposition 8 is passed, heterosexual couples will be forced to wed out of the state if they wish to be officially identified as bride and groom or husband and wife." He said in a statement. "This is a major slap in the face for traditional marriage."
Click to expand...

Filling out form incorrectly = heterosexuals no longer allowed to get married... Brilliant!
 
This is a ridiculous complaint.

The licence is state paperwork and doesn't matter. You can write your own vows and call each other anything you want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top