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 ...
Name of Partner 2: Mr. and/or Ms. ____________
If there is no Bride and no Groom then it’s not a Marriage, it’s a Civil Union. But if it’s not Marriage then they discriminate if they take out Bride and Groom to accomodate those who won’t settle for Civil Unions by replacing Bride and Groom with words that don’t disciminate. ILLOGICAL! ILLOGICAL! NORMAN PLEASE COORDINATE!
The U.S. Constitution has nothing to do with this. It does not prohibit homosexual marriages and thus no amendment is necessary. Family law is the jurisdiction of the states.
correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Civil Unions already exist in Cali prior to this decision?
If so, isn’t the insistance on using the term “marriage” just a thumb in the eye of traditional families?
My question is: the courts had better figure out which is the man and which is the woman, because in a divorce, they have to know who gets the house, kids, dog, car, and who gets to move out, pay alimony, pay the mortgage, continue the car payments, and get accused of abuse.
But, other states would not recognize such marriages now would they?
And of course these “marriges” would not be recognized in filing joint federal income taxes either would they?
I’m assuming you are an attorney?
Hose A
Hose B
Interesting claim, in light of the fact that several states were forced to forever foreswear plural marriage before CONGRESS would allow them into the Union.
comrade top and comrade bottom.
It could refer to their favorite position-—sorry that’s awful!!
Dear Abby:
Today I accidentally called my partner B, partner A. Now my partner B wants me always to call my partner B, partner A. Well, I’m partner A. If knew I would someday be partner B I would never had married. It used to be bride and groom but being an enlightened progressive liberal I thought best my partner B and I use partner A and partner B to affirm our gender neutral beliefs. But now my partner B wants to be partner A and refuses to talk to me unless I call my partner B, partner A. I’m so mad and confused. Help!
Signed
Stupid in California
Exactly what Dennis Prager said would happen just a few days ago is now unfolding in California. You’re absolutely right, who says 2 only? Why not 3, 4, 5, 6, 10? By whose authority will the state now arbitrarily limit this to 2 people? If God has been removed and moral principles jettisoned what will constrain the madness and lunacy?
California Decision Will Radically Change Society
by Dennis Prager - 5/20/2008
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2008/05/20/california-decision-will-radically-change-society/
Don’t worry, that’s coming next! Why discriminate against apes or dogs or horses etc.. If moral/religious laws are ignored and reality is tossed out the window, then the state has no right to tell anyone anything. If CA can call “marriage” anything, then welcome to Caligula 2008!
rofl.
“what will constrain the madness and lunacy?”
Some would argue “enlightened self interest”, but, for people in positions of power, I don’t see how that could be distinguished from hubris. Others would clothe godhood in what pleases them, and call it Good. Neither seems like much of a constraint.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Partner 6
Partner 9
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.