California bans 'brides,' 'grooms'; now it's Party A, Party B

[FrankRep]

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

World Net Daily
September 08, 2008


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."


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

[noxagol]

Good god I hate California. They come up with the stupidest things. And before anyone gets the wrong idea, I don't give a shit who marries who. Just leave the lines blank or let them right in their own titles of marriage. I hate the government, I hate the government, I hate the government!

[A. Havnes]

That's retarded. Does it matter what you call yourself when you're married?

[danberkeley]

why "Party A"? Why not "Person A"? "Party" could imply one or more entities.

[orafi]

A is higher than B. That implies that whoever is Party A is better than Party B. That is not socialist, CA!!!

[olehounddog]

why "Party A"? Why not "Person A"? "Party" could imply one or more entities.

I think I remember a guy on Springer who married a donkey.:eek: Maybe that's why. The foolishness of it all.

[acptulsa]

Just another contract. Romance be damned, I guess. Just a change in tax status, nothing more... :(

[Mini-Me]

Just another contract. Romance be damned, I guess. Just a change in tax status, nothing more... :(

IMO, that's actually how marriage should be, as far as the state is concerned - merely a contract detailing the terms of joint property ownership and custody of children (in case of divorce). Romance is between a husband/wife, husband/husband, wife/wife, husband/harem, wife/male harem, husband/consenting and sapient donkey, or whatever...and between the church/other organization that chooses to marry them, I suppose. ;) There never was anything romantic about begging your governmental overlord for a license anyway.

It seems entirely absurd to me that people actually need to ask the government for a license to get married, as if they're asking permission from their moral superior. Furthermore, it's ridiculous that governments subsidize marriage through tax benefits at the expense of single people. Lastly, it's ludicrous that governments come up with an arbitrary list of "acceptable" marriages and then force individuals, organizations, and other governments to recognize them and dole out benefits accordingly.

I really wish people could simply marry whomever they wanted, so long as someone was willing to perform the ceremony, and that others could then choose whether they feel that marriage is worthy of being recognized as legitimate. In other words, marriage should be entirely social and cultural, and the state should only have a hand in the details of joint ownership and custody of children (and mediating disputes of contract when they arise).

[LiveFree79]

IMO, that's actually how marriage should be, as far as the state is concerned - merely a contract detailing the terms of joint property ownership and custody of children (in case of divorce). Romance is between a husband/wife, husband/husband, wife/wife, husband/harem, wife/male harem, husband/consenting and sapient donkey, or whatever...and between the church/other organization that chooses to marry them, I suppose. ;) There never was anything romantic about begging your governmental overlord for a license anyway.

It seems entirely absurd to me that people actually need to ask the government for a license to get married, as if they're asking permission from their moral superior. Furthermore, it's ridiculous that governments subsidize marriage through tax benefits at the expense of single people. Lastly, it's ludicrous that governments come up with an arbitrary list of "acceptable" marriages and then force individuals, organizations, and other governments to recognize them and dole out benefits accordingly.

I really wish people could simply marry whomever they wanted, so long as someone was willing to perform the ceremony, and that others could then choose whether they feel that marriage is worthy of being recognized as legitimate. In other words, marriage should be entirely social and cultural, and the state should only have a hand in the details of joint ownership and custody of children (and mediating disputes of contract when they arise).

Great point! Your average sheeperson doesn't even think about what you just said. Pathetic. Fuck Government!

[Danke]

why "Party A"? Why not "Person A"? "Party" could imply one or more entities.

Then you could marry a corporation too!

[Mini-Me]

Great point! Your average sheeperson doesn't even think about what you just said. Pathetic. Fuck Government!

Hehe thanks :D


Then you could marry a corporation too!

Yeah, but I feel like my love for Nintendo is somewhat unrequited... ;)

[Mesogen]

They really should get back to the Bible and allow multiple wives and concubines.

[Indy4Chng]

IMO, that's actually how marriage should be, as far as the state is concerned - merely a contract detailing the terms of joint property ownership and custody of children (in case of divorce). Romance is between a husband/wife, husband/husband, wife/wife, husband/harem, wife/male harem, husband/consenting and sapient donkey, or whatever...and between the church/other organization that chooses to marry them, I suppose. ;) There never was anything romantic about begging your governmental overlord for a license anyway.

It seems entirely absurd to me that people actually need to ask the government for a license to get married, as if they're asking permission from their moral superior. Furthermore, it's ridiculous that governments subsidize marriage through tax benefits at the expense of single people. Lastly, it's ludicrous that governments come up with an arbitrary list of "acceptable" marriages and then force individuals, organizations, and other governments to recognize them and dole out benefits accordingly.

I really wish people could simply marry whomever they wanted, so long as someone was willing to perform the ceremony, and that others could then choose whether they feel that marriage is worthy of being recognized as legitimate. In other words, marriage should be entirely social and cultural, and the state should only have a hand in the details of joint ownership and custody of children (and mediating disputes of contract when they arise).

The government should not recognize any marriage. Any two adults should be able to register as co-owners of property. Both parents could fill out a form to pass on custody. Marriage is a religous thing and should be left out of the government. All marriage licenses should be banned immediately. How come no states have that as an iniative.

[NaT805]

What about party C, D, E, etc?

[heavenlyboy34]

You are SOO right! +a zillion! Government regulation sucks! Government regulation of marriage "licensing" and so on is what started this shit. :mad: Fuck the government!


IMO, that's actually how marriage should be, as far as the state is concerned - merely a contract detailing the terms of joint property ownership and custody of children (in case of divorce). Romance is between a husband/wife, husband/husband, wife/wife, husband/harem, wife/male harem, husband/consenting and sapient donkey, or whatever...and between the church/other organization that chooses to marry them, I suppose. ;) There never was anything romantic about begging your governmental overlord for a license anyway.

It seems entirely absurd to me that people actually need to ask the government for a license to get married, as if they're asking permission from their moral superior. Furthermore, it's ridiculous that governments subsidize marriage through tax benefits at the expense of single people. Lastly, it's ludicrous that governments come up with an arbitrary list of "acceptable" marriages and then force individuals, organizations, and other governments to recognize them and dole out benefits accordingly.

I really wish people could simply marry whomever they wanted, so long as someone was willing to perform the ceremony, and that others could then choose whether they feel that marriage is worthy of being recognized as legitimate. In other words, marriage should be entirely social and cultural, and the state should only have a hand in the details of joint ownership and custody of children (and mediating disputes of contract when they arise).

[Imperial]

Could I marry the Campaign for Liberty?

[Natalie]

California is so lame. damn hippies!

[nate895]

This is retarded. Apparently I will not be getting married in the State of California. The church should handle all things marriage.

[berrybunches]

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

World Net Daily
September 08, 2008


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."


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


I think this is a good idea. I don't think the federal government has any business recognizing me as a man, women, black, white or whatever. I am just a human being that should have the exact same equal rights as everyone else. Government should be sex and color blind. They should only see the individual.

Who cares about traditional marriage anymore. With the divorce rate its kinda a joke to talk about any moral side in this country.

I don't want their damned "license" to marry. Marriage is in between me and my partner, I shouldn't have to get permission from the state.

[kathy88]

Great point! Your average sheeperson doesn't even think about what you just said. Pathetic. Fuck Government!


This is so true.

[Standing Like A Rock]

why "Party A"? Why not "Person A"? "Party" could imply one or more entities.

hmmm.... i wonder if corporations could get married..... walmart and mcdonalds should hook up this winter...

[nate895]

I think this is a good idea. I don't think the federal government has any business recognizing me as a man, women, black, white or whatever. I am just a human being that should have the exact same equal rights as everyone else. Government should be sex and color blind. They should only see the individual.

Who cares about traditional marriage anymore. With the divorce rate its kinda a joke to talk about any moral side in this country.

I don't want their damned "license" to marry. Marriage is in between me and my partner, I shouldn't have to get permission from the state.

I agree that the state shouldn't grant marriage licenses, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't care about traditional marriage while they're issuing licenses.

The divorce rate is currently in decline, and my theory is that much of the divorce rate is from repeat divorces, because I am in still in high school and I'd say only 10% of people I know have divorced parents. Most of the people who I know who have went through a divorce, go through at least two more.

[idiom]

See this is what happens when you let the government near anything.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Then you could marry a corporation too!

I thought only Politicians could marry Corporations... but the Alimony, Palimony, Child Support, & Expenses, were to be paid for by the American TAXPAYERS?


I never signed ANY contract with these parties! So I presume, I'm not to be held liable, and entitled to a complete REFUND of all my Federal Deductions!

Pay Up FEDS, I need my money back that you stole!

[fedup100]

Is it called "The Sodom and Gomorrah" law? The whole country should be ashamed of itself.

[Monolithic]

i love california, it provides so much entertainment to me

it's able to piss off fundies with such ease

[fedup100]

I agree that the state shouldn't grant marriage licenses, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't care about traditional marriage while they're issuing licenses.

The divorce rate is currently in decline, and my theory is that much of the divorce rate is from repeat divorces, because I am in still in high school and I'd say only 10% of people I know have divorced parents. Most of the people who I know who have went through a divorce, go through at least two more.

If you don't know the law then you will continue to make stupid mistakes. There is no law requiring a state marriage license. Anyone can be married by an ordained minister and the marriage is legal and binding. The difference is you do not bring the state in as a partner in the marriage, therefore not giving an adhesion contract as far as alimony, child support and child protective services.