Do you “A”; take this “B”, to be you lawful wedded @#$%*+whatever???… NO!!!
Pacific Justice Institute President Brad Dacus said voters must change the state constitution by voting for the marriage amendment in November if they wish to restore the 20 million year traditional meaning of marriage. "Unless Proposition 8 is passed, heterosexual couples will be forced to wed out of the state or eventually out of the country if they wish to be officially identified as bride and groom or husband and wife. . This is a major slap in the face for traditional marriage."
THE BOTTOM LINE: So, a 20 million year tradition, give or take a few million of course, has been struck down by four half brained individuals who think they are wiser that God. I wonder if they realize that this leaves the door open for someone to marry their Jaguar…Yes the car-or the cat… Just as long apparently, if you refer to it as party “A” or party “B”. Which brings up a question?
Which one is party “A” the car or the cat…
Be sure to vote for Prepossession ‘8’ if you don’t; who knows what kind of kids will be running around the neighborhood.
de Andréa
Then you may not kiss the “A” …whatever it is…
By de Andréa
California Marriage licenses now do not allow you to marry anyone except an “A” or a “B” whatever that is. I suppose it could be your pet, or your farm animal, even if it was the same gender as you are. No! This is true…
“Men and Women” or “Brides and grooms" are no longer allowed to marry in the State of California. That privilege as stated on the new California marriage licenses is only extended to "Party A’s" and "Party B’s". Since it is not stipulated, one can only suppose it includes anything, or any gender or species. Just what is an “A” and a “B”? It could be your pet rock for crying out loud. Or two pet rocks could get married… of the same gender.
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 make a new law and overturn the old law of the people Proposition 22, which states: that a marriage must be between a man and a woman, not a dog and a cat or any other organic carbon based material
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. The County Recorder's Office claimed the office of Vital Records determined, it was an "unacceptable alteration."
"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.
By de Andréa
California Marriage licenses now do not allow you to marry anyone except an “A” or a “B” whatever that is. I suppose it could be your pet, or your farm animal, even if it was the same gender as you are. No! This is true…
“Men and Women” or “Brides and grooms" are no longer allowed to marry in the State of California. That privilege as stated on the new California marriage licenses is only extended to "Party A’s" and "Party B’s". Since it is not stipulated, one can only suppose it includes anything, or any gender or species. Just what is an “A” and a “B”? It could be your pet rock for crying out loud. Or two pet rocks could get married… of the same gender.
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 make a new law and overturn the old law of the people Proposition 22, which states: that a marriage must be between a man and a woman, not a dog and a cat or any other organic carbon based material
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. The County Recorder's Office claimed the office of Vital Records determined, it was an "unacceptable alteration."
"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 for the marriage amendment in November if they wish to restore the 20 million year traditional meaning of marriage. "Unless Proposition 8 is passed, heterosexual couples will be forced to wed out of the state or eventually out of the country if they wish to be officially identified as bride and groom or husband and wife. . This is a major slap in the face for traditional marriage."
THE BOTTOM LINE: So, a 20 million year tradition, give or take a few million of course, has been struck down by four half brained individuals who think they are wiser that God. I wonder if they realize that this leaves the door open for someone to marry their Jaguar…Yes the car-or the cat… Just as long apparently, if you refer to it as party “A” or party “B”. Which brings up a question?
Which one is party “A” the car or the cat…
Be sure to vote for Prepossession ‘8’ if you don’t; who knows what kind of kids will be running around the neighborhood.
de Andréa
Posts
1 comment:
"California Marriage licenses now do not allow you to marry anyone except an “A” or a “B” whatever that is. I suppose it could be your pet, or your farm animal, even if it was the same gender as you are. No! This is true… Since it is not stipulated, one can only suppose it includes anything, or any gender or species. Just what is an “A” and a “B”? It could be your pet rock for crying out loud. Or two pet rocks could get married… of the same gender."
You can't marry an animal or a rock, because animals and rocks don't have the same legal and constitutional rights that are guaranteed to all adult human beings in California, including homosexual adult human beings in California.
"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?"
Of course not. This is ridiculous. First Amendment protections have always guaranteed Pastor Bird's right to conduct church business according to the dictates of his faith, however bigoted that may happen to be. For example, if Pastor Bird wishes to refuse to officiate interracial marriages (as many pastors did up 'til just a generation ago, saying that such weddings upset the historical, traditional definition of marriage, in addition to being counter to Scripture), that would be his right. By that same token, Pastor Bird will always be within his right to refuse to conduct same-sex marriages (regardless of the outcome of Prop 8), as well as being within his right to conduct different-gender weddings and refer to the happy couple as "husband and wife," or as "big guy and li'l darlin'," or as "Ricky and Lucy," or whatever the heck he wants to call 'em.
"THE BOTTOM LINE: So, a 20 million year tradition, give or take a few million of course, has been struck down by four half brained individuals who think they are wiser that God."
State-wide prohibitions on interracial marriage were also in keeping with that 20 million year tradition, and considered by many to've been ordained by God, until 1968, when those very-popular, traditional, God-commanded anti-miscegenation laws were struck down by a handful of "half brained individuals" called the U.S. Supreme Court in a case called Loving v. Virginia. Today's freedom-loving Americans hail that decision, because we all recognize that our nation's equal protection guarantees supersede simple legislation, supersede popular opinion, and even supersede some citizens' understandings of the Lord's commandments. Just as yesterday's racists were always free to abstain from marrying someone of a different race, even after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Loving v. Virginia, so are today's homophobes free to abstain from marrying someone of the same gender, even after the California Supreme Court ruled that Prop 22 violated the state constitution. It's fine to harbor your private bigotries, and it's fine to follow the dictates of your God. What's not fine is your attempt to amend our state's primary secular document to adhere to your non-secular faith.
And as long as we're talking, what the heck does it matter if a line on a marriage license happens to be gender-neutral? How does that devalue or in any way affect any Californian's marriage? And how is this an example of the supposed need for Prop 8? We need to keep consenting, monogamous, loving Californians who happen to be of the same gender from marrying each other in order to protect the sanctity of a line item on a piece of government paperwork? I've heard many silly reasons why we should revoke rights from fellow Californians who are hurting absolutely no one, but this has got to be the silliest.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Post a Comment