Heterosexuals across California -- or least one couple in Sacramento -- are outraged -- OUTRAGED! -- by how the Homosexual Agendaists are trampling on their Sacred and Inalienable Rights!

How is this happening? Are they being forbidden to marry each other? Are they being told that their love is wrong, unnatural, subject to criminal penalties? Are they being denied the right to get married in a religious ceremony in their own church?

No, it's something worse ... far worse ... they aren't being called "bride" and "groom" on their state wedding license application. Egads!

Last month, Rachel Bird exchanged vows with Gideon Codding in a church wedding in front of family and friends. As far as Bird is concerned, she is a bride. To the state of California, however, she is either "Party A" or "Party B."

Those are the terms that have replaced "bride" and "groom" on the state's new gender-neutral marriage licenses. And to Bird and Codding, that is unacceptable. "We are traditionalists – we just want to be called bride and groom," said Bird, 25, who works part time for her father's church. "Those words have been used for generations and now they just changed them."

In May, after the California State Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage legal, the courts mandated state officials to provide gender-neutral licenses and other marriage forms. "Bride" and "groom" became "Party A" and "Party B."

Rachel and Gideon are taking a principled stand. They simply aren't getting married.

Or, rather, they've been married in their church, but aren't filling out a marriage license. As a result, they can't get spousal benefits or anything like that. And it's all the fault of the Homosexualistas! 

Sure, they can call each other "bride" and "groom," as can their friends, their family, their church, even strangers on the street. But those things aren't important -- the whole meaning of a marriage is, as we all know, all about what's on that little form you turn into the government.

Rachel Bird described her position as "personal – not religious."

"We just feel that our rights have been violated," she said.

Right! The state police come and beat you with bludgeons every time you try to use the term "bride" or "groom," the bastards! They also burned all your "His" and "Her" towels, insisted that you wear unisex uniforms for the ceremony, and made you flip a coin to determine the content of your marriage vows!

To some, the couple's stand may seem frivolous. But others believe "bride" and "groom" are terms that are too important for the state to set aside. "Those who support (same-sex marriage) say it has no impact on heterosexuals," said Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute. "This debunks that argument."

Yes, it's true -- same-sex marriage does have a measurable impact on heterosexuals. For one thing, it makes it harder to book a church and a reception hall in June. Also, there's a chronic shortage of tuxes. And, of course, there's the Vile, Cruel Insult of a governmental form referring to "Party A" and "Party B."

I mean, think of it! How would you like to get hitched knowing that, forever, in the eyes of the State of California, you're on the "B" list while your spouse is on the "A" list? How rude of those selfish Homosexualists to impose their A/B ordering on the population at large!

For now, they are busy with their family (she has two children from a previous marriage and he has three) and starting their new life.

"We feel like a a bride and groom," said Bird.

Not according to the State of California ...

Filed under :: Gay Stuff :: Love and Marriage :: Writing and Language :: ZT & PC
Link · Print · Edit · TR/G

Ummmmmm....wow, that is insane.

Party A and Party B sounds much more like the contract that marriage is in the eyes of the state.

Personally, I think people should be able to be married without the ceremony if they so choose, with just the signing and witnessing of the documents. It works that way when you create a will or sign insurance documents, also contractual in nature. The ceremony should be ceremonial, not required!

Not that there are not those who disagree with me on this.

As far as the state is concerned, I think signing the paperwork is fine. The state's there to recognize and enforce the contract. If you want something more, your own church (or an officiant of you choice) is a better place for it than the county courthouse.

Now here's question:

Is California a Common Law Marriage State like Colorado is? If so, this issue would clear itself up in about a year or so. And yeah, "Party A/Party B" is nice clear, concise contract language.

But, if we were a smart country we would enact laws like in most of Europe where the Legal Marriage (County Clerk) is completely separate from the religious marriage (Priest), plus it would be a nice separation of church and state move.

No in most states, you have to have a ceremony that is either civil or religious. The officiant then signs the paperwork. In Pennsylvania, you don't have to have a ceremony (because of large Quaker populations that don't have clergy), a court case has recently eased control of this type of non-ceremony.

Colorado also allows self-uniting, although they do so because the state still recognizes common-law marriages.

An article -http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07271/821194-85.stm

Hmm... "...children from a previous marriage ..." Perhaps the license application should use terms that reflect the applicants' regard for the sanctity of marriage. I suggest "former groom" and "former bride."

Ya know....Avo makes a point.

Since they want to be old school about it, why are they getting remarried since wouldn't it be a sin to be a bigomist?

DON'T OPPRESS THEM WITH FACTS!

Lucky for them, California offers domestic partner benefits.

But only if you identify as such, I suspect, which, I equally suspect, the couple in question would decline to do. "We want Bride-and-Groom Benefits (in that order, mind you), or else."

Gah. This drives me insane. The State has no business being involved in ANY religious function. The state Marriage Certificate should be a simple contract with room for 3 witnesses. If the pair to be married choose to have their contract executed as part of a ceremony and witnessed by a member of their particulary brand of clergy, well, that's their choice. The actualy ceremony at a religious institution having absolutely no bearing on the person's status with the State.

So, to sum up:
-Buy license from State.
-Fill out license (please ensure you understand the impact of this contractual agreement before signing)
-Have license witnessed.
-Have license Notarized.
-Send license to State.
DONE!

Agreed.

What about me. We had a civil ceremony for various reasons. That was us, and 70 guests in a ceremony free of religeon (UK law states that during a civil ceremony you can't have any religeon- even 'Angels' by Robbie Williams is banned) conducted by the official Registrar. A bit like a church marriage, but no 'G' word.

I would argue that if you want a religious ceremony, have a religious ceremony. If you want the state to provide the ceremony, it should be done without religious reference, because the state has no business supporting such. If that means holding back-to-back ceremonies, that's logistically irksome, but the "cleanest" solution.

It may be more the American "justice of the peace" model, but I'd argue that the civil ceremony related to marriage should be as unceremonial as possible. I don't expect musical accompaniment at the voting place, a swearing-in to office, or at a citizenship ceremony; I don't know that it has a place (directly) in a civil union ceremony run by the government. Again, that's something that can be handled separately.