Skip to comments.
California bans 'brides,' 'grooms'
License rejected for couple seeking traditional marriage
WorldNetDaily ^
| September 08, 2008
| Chelsea Schilling
Posted on 09/09/2008 10:15:36 AM PDT by buccaneer81
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-25 next last
"Queerly beloved..."
To: buccaneer81
There’s something very wrong with the people in California.
Next step: Making weddings legal with multiples “A’s” and “B’s.”
After that? We get to marry our dogs, goats, burmese pythons, horses, racoons, you name it.
2
posted on
09/09/2008 10:19:47 AM PDT
by
RexBeach
To: buccaneer81
WND at it again. The story doesn't even come close to matching the headline. If this couple had simply put their names in the boxes where their names belonged, they would have had their license without delay. But, of course, there would be no story, no hand wringing without the pretense that they were actually denied a license because they were a heterosexual couple.
3
posted on
09/09/2008 10:28:31 AM PDT
by
dmz
To: buccaneer81
What a bunch of freakaziods.
No Christmas in the schools but all the homosexuals you can shove down peoples throats. Now the State does not recognize a Bride and Groom as legit marriage terms???
Human person A and Sheep B.
The decline of the Republic continues because we allow it too.....
4
posted on
09/09/2008 10:29:43 AM PDT
by
SECURE AMERICA
( Choice 2008 McCain =Hero, Obama = Zero. Palin = Fresh - Biden = Stale)
To: dmz
The bride and groom did not want to be known as "Party A" and "Party B." I don't blame them.
By your reasoning, they should have just grabbed their ankles and given in to the leftists and their gay agenda.
5
posted on
09/09/2008 10:33:03 AM PDT
by
buccaneer81
(Bob Taft has soiled the family name for the next century.)
To: buccaneer81
Coming soon to cities and towns across California:
6
posted on
09/09/2008 10:36:41 AM PDT
by
Grampa Dave
(I do not want to know the type of person, who does not like Sarah Palin!)
To: RexBeach
There's something very wrong with the people of CaliforniaRather broad brush you're painting with. FR is hosted by JimRob out of California. Not everyone here is nuts, although some are intent in driving us so, and THE PEOPLE did not vote for sham marriage, JUDGES did. Coming soon without your consent to a state near YOU.
To: buccaneer81
Stop feeding the pigs!!! Go to another state to get married!!!
8
posted on
09/09/2008 10:51:36 AM PDT
by
unixfox
(The 13th Amendment Abolished Slavery, The 16th Amendment Reinstated It !)
To: informavoracious; Grampa Dave; buccaneer81; dmz; SECURE AMERICA; RexBeach; All
9
posted on
09/09/2008 10:53:35 AM PDT
by
Calpernia
(Hunters Rangers - Raising the Bar of Integrity http://www.barofintegrity.us)
To: buccaneer81
The bride and groom did not want to be known as "Party A" and "Party B." I don't blame them. By your reasoning, they should have just grabbed their ankles and given in to the leftists and their gay agenda. How many times, when signing a legal document, have you demanded the legal documents not refer to the parties as parties? What!!!!!????? Never? Shocking.
The pastor did not have to, nor did he, refer to them as Party A and Party B. So they were not ever going to be known as Party A / Party B.
That you think of anal sex in this context is more than a bit disturbing.
10
posted on
09/09/2008 11:04:20 AM PDT
by
dmz
To: buccaneer81
I wonder how long before one of the “parties” is a dog or a horse or an ass or.... I suspect it will be in my lifetime.
11
posted on
09/09/2008 11:07:39 AM PDT
by
AlaskaErik
(I served and protected my country for 31 years. Democrats spent that time trying to destroy it.)
To: dmz
That you think of anal sex in this context is more than a bit disturbing. The gay agenda is the reason why "Bride" and "Groom" were changed to "Party A" and "Party B." The ONLY reason.
Are you sure you're on the right forum?
12
posted on
09/09/2008 11:12:06 AM PDT
by
buccaneer81
(Bob Taft has soiled the family name for the next century.)
To: dmz
How many times, when signing a legal document, have you demanded the legal documents not refer to the parties as parties? A bride is a woman. A groom is a man. Same goes for mother and father. Aside from those two examples, in most legal documents it doesn't matter what gender either party is.
Your argument holds no water and leads me to believe that you're either a liberal, or worse, a lawyer.
13
posted on
09/09/2008 11:16:40 AM PDT
by
buccaneer81
(Bob Taft has soiled the family name for the next century.)
To: RexBeach
Party A to Party B: "OMG, did you see her ass?!!" Okay Okay no more...
To: AlaskaErik
To: Skenderbej
LOL!!!!
Well, I guess the ass can always bray for her?
16
posted on
09/09/2008 12:19:38 PM PDT
by
RexBeach
To: dmz; buccaneer81; sheprd
Contracts/covenants for “bride” and “groom” have been around a lot longer than those for “Party A” and “Party B” (unless we’re talking about segregated reception parties).
Of course, not recognizing that the marriage contract is significantly special enough to warrant its own unique and permanent nomenclature is a sure sign that people don’t understand marriage.
17
posted on
09/09/2008 5:15:09 PM PDT
by
E-Mat
(Made in China = Arms for Tyrants)
To: buccaneer81
Pictures of the license before and after?
18
posted on
09/09/2008 5:16:30 PM PDT
by
E-Mat
(Made in China = Arms for Tyrants)
To: E-Mat
19
posted on
09/09/2008 5:16:51 PM PDT
by
buccaneer81
(Bob Taft has soiled the family name for the next century.)
To: E-Mat
20
posted on
09/09/2008 5:20:42 PM PDT
by
E-Mat
(Made in China = Arms for Tyrants)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-25 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson