Posted on 05/22/2008 11:38:36 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
California is rewriting its marriage forms for gays
By MICHAEL R. BLOOD, Associated Press Writer 20 minutes ago
You have to figure "bride" and "groom" are out.
So, what will the California marriage license look like in the new era of same-sex marriages? Will it list "Partner A" and "Partner B"? "Intended No. 1" and "Intended No. 2"? Or will it contain just blank spaces for the betrothed?
The court decision last week that legalized gay marriage in California has created a semantic puzzle with scant time to solve it. With the ruling tentatively set to take effect June 16, state bureaucrats must rapidly rewrite, print and distribute a marriage license application.
The current one-page form uses "bride" and "groom" four times each, and also requires the signatures of an "unmarried man" and an "unmarried woman," wording that is obviously out of step with the California Supreme Court ruling opening the way for gay marriages.
Thousands of same-sex couples are expected to flock to the state next month to wed. But typically it takes the state months to churn out new forms.
Kate Kendell, executive director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said she is not particularly worried.
"This is where you don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good," she said. "If people can marry and those marriages are legally recognized in compliance with the court ruling ... the t's crossed and i's dotted on the form are the least of our concerns."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
What? Only two? Bias reigns.
So, what will the California marriage license look like in the new era of same-sex marriages? Will it list “Partner A” and “Partner B”? “Intended No. 1” and “Intended No. 2”? Or will it contain just blank spaces for the betrothed?
maybe “Rumprider 1” and “Rumprider 2”
They need more than two blocks, because there is nothing important about marriage meaning a “couple” any longer.
Partner C
Partner D
Notice the rush to set all these phony “marriages” in stone before the people can vote on a constitutional amendment to preserve the real thing.
Radical leftism is a one-way ratchet. Once these policies are put in force, they never reverse them. “Compromise” is just one gear on the ratchet. “Compassion” is another. Always grinding...
It’s far from settled so they better save the ink for now.
WHEN WILL THIS ALPHABETICIST OPPRESSION END?!!??
Welcome to the Brave New World.
I am not an attorney and I don’t play one on television and please correct me if I am wrong but these “marriage licenses” for homosexuals aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on until there is an amendment to the U.S. Constitution recognizing marriages between two individuals of the same sex.
Any constitutional lawyers out there?
Be prepared for derision of your “slippery slope argument”.
I’ll pre-empt them.
THE definition of Marriage now no longer exists in California.
There is THE definition, or NO definition. It’s not a slope, it’s a cliff, and Cali just jumped off of it, pushed by 4 people who are wiser than anyone that ever existed.
Any other definition of Marriage is just as “arbitrary” as the gay “marriage” promoters say that THE definition is.
No kidding ... even when they're tax forms that are due back before they get the forms to you in the first place.
Here's a scenario ... a homosexual couple "marries" using a form with "bride and groom" "man and woman" whited out whereever they occur, and "person 1, person 2" written in. A year later, the couple breaks up and files for divorce, but a judge rules they weren't ever married because the license had been adulterated and the carbons don't made the original. Property-settlement chaos ensues, and they end up on "Judge Judy" ...
Who’s to say that the chaos you describe isn’t part of the goal?
... then eternal damnation.
What if Partner B is named “Fido?”
Surely they won’t discriminate against those who wish to marry their dogs, or perhaps their brother.
Well you can’t have Partner 1 and Partner 2, as that implies that Partner 2 is less than Partner 1. The same problem exists with Partner A and Partner B.
Years ago, Robert Fripp issued a “double album” with one album on each side of the vinyl disc. God Save the Queen/Under Heavy Manners (pure and applied Frippertronics) had a Side A and a Side 1. I think that resolves this problem.
Good observations :-).
Pitcher and catcher???
It would be up to the happy couple to decide who would be head or tail.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy.
I weep for whats left of our Country
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.