Apparently it's illegal for a bride to marry a groom and vice versa in the wacko-land that is known as California.
From WorldNetDaily:
Gideon Codding and Rachel Bird recently were married in Placer County, near Sacramento. However, surprised by new forms that were created by state bureaucrats to allow for "Party A" and "Party B" on marriage licenses, they "jotted an explanatory 'Groom' and 'Bride' next to the party names."
They soon found out how strong is the pro-homosexual lobby in the state: The form was returned to Pastor Doug Bird, who officiated, with a form letter stating the license "does not comply with California State registration laws."
This is pretty pathetic; California government demands generic marital distinctions and refuses to acknowledge the actual marital distinctions of bride and groom.
Is it just me, or does that smack of Marxist-style revision and propaganda in the highest order?
We're in deep trouble, folks.
7 comments:
Funny, I always think it's Marxist of conservatives to spit on the rights of American citizens by saying gay Americans can only marry someone they don't love of the opposite sex.
Marxism and conservatism are antithetical to one another.
How about we use pine needles in place of $20 bills? Right after we stop spitting on the rights of pine-needle lovers, we can say homosexuals can "marry" one another.
Until then, marriage is as it always has been and really only can be: between a man and a woman.
Twenty thousands years ago, I wonder what they called marriage...oh, I forgot, you don't believe the earth is older than 6,000 years, sorry, my mistake.
bob
you and i will never agree on most if not all of the cultural war points. i can clearly see that in your posts. i will not accept your points either. accept that. but i do have an honest question here without preconditions. where do we go from here? i am open and and willing to respect your opinions. and now? dongard@comcast.net
Anonymous, you are correct that you and I will never agree on most or all of the fronts in the culture war, unless you change your mind, that is.
I'm glad that you're open and willing to respect my opinions, though I don't know that it counts for much if you aren't willing to admit I'm right.
Where do we go from here? I don't know about you, but I plan to continue standing up for and defending marriage, family and truth.
As a lesbian who was recently married in California, I can say that the practice of returning the application for using either the word bride or groom is not state-wide. We wrote in Bride 1 and Bride 2 and had no problems. I do think it is ridiculous to force the generic terms of Party A and Party B on the marrying couple. Bob, I have a comment on your comment of defending marriage. Although I will admit I fell into the trap as well and got married when I was legally allowed to do so, I'm not sure how anyone can defend an institution that has over a 50% rate of failure. And sorry, Bob, but you can't blame those percentages on any of us gays since we have had nothing to do with the institution of marriage until recently.
I wouldn't try to blame the high divorce rate on homosexuals; that one is squarely at the foot of heterosexuals.
There is definitely something wrong with a great number of people who enter the institution of marriage, but there is nothing indefensible about the institution of marriage itself.
While heterosexuals who do not take their vows seriously undermine the institution of marriage, they are not changing it. Allowing homosexuals to call their unions "marriage" fundamentally alters the institution of marriage to include something it has never included and by nature can never include while maintaining its unique character.
Post a Comment