Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Deeper

'Bride' and 'Groom' Deemed Unacceptable by California

Recommended Posts

'Bride' and 'Groom' Deemed Unacceptable by California Bureaucrats

when I heard this on the Christian Radio station on my way home 20 mins ago I got so mad. This is such a load of trash. what is California's problem. Holy crud! when I get married I WILL NOT GET MARRIED AS PARTY A AND PARTY B. It's stinkin husband and wife. Stop ruining our marriages darn it.

Those seeking to wed as "bride" and "groom" in California will now have to marry outside the state. Pastor Doug Bird found that out after he officiated his first wedding ceremony since the decision by the California Supreme Court overturning Proposition 22.

Last week the marriage license that he filed with Placer County was sent back along with a notice of rejection. "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 stated. The applicants, 'Gideon and Rachel', wrote the words 'groom' and 'bride' next to 'Party A' and 'Party B' because they wished to have their legal union officially recognized as a covenant between a husband and wife. The County Recorder's Office stated that the State Office of Vital Records deemed the hand written words 'bride and groom' to be an 'unacceptable alternation.' "What's next? Will the State of California force. . .[ministers] to use the terms 'Party A' and 'Party B' in the ceremony itself?" Bird wrote in an open letter dated September 4, 2008.[/b]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's ridiculous.

Why does the government interfere so much?

The words 'bride' and 'groom' have been used for a long, long, long time.

Now they're not acceptable??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now they're not acceptable??[/b]

Not that they're unacceptable. It's just that having two "brides" or two "grooms" on the same marriage license looks absolutely ridiculous.

Oh, wait. That's because it is absolutely ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'm confused as to what actually happened.. either way, sounds like two people high on their horse trying to make a point against homosexual marriage. They can take their point and..... Well, there are a lot of things they could do to it, but it wouldn't be appropriate for me to say. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This turn of events is unfortunate. <_< What was the point in the Government interfering like this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
America is quickly becoming facist...wonderful...[/b]

"Set the groove and sink a move like I was Cassius, rep the stutter step and bomb a left upon the fascists!"

~Rage Against the Machine

But yeah this is a load of bull. The people determine what is acceptable, not the government.

"... until death do you part. Party A may kiss Party B. I now pronounce you Party C."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This... is ridicuous.

*rolls eyes*

ick.

This is where I suggest you move to australia, the lucky country, and the land of common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All i can say is when i get married i WILL be called "bride"...i've been waiting my whole life for that and I will demand the title. Good thing im not getting married in CA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t see why they should have to interfere, or why anyone would be offended. If a couple wants to be referred to as party A and party B, bride and groom, or dog and cat, I don’t really care so long as the terminology fits or is deemed appropriate by the parties involved. I also don’t think it should be anyone else’s decision to make what terms are preferred and used. Sounds like some overly sensitive, emotionally/mentally unstable, politically powerful homosexual(s) had something to do with this, and I regret that it represents the homosexual rights movement so poorly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"... until death do you part. Party A may kiss Party B. I now pronounce you Party C."[/b]

Lol nice - I agree. On my wedding day I'm going to be a bride...

If my husband wants to be 'Party A', well, that's his call, but I'm gonna be a bride and there's not much California can do about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG

Wow. That certainly wasn't voted on was it? States enacting rules without using democracy is lame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG
James, it's called legislatory power... those people are voted in the first place.[/b]

right right. But things dealing with big subjects like Marriage Law should be ran past the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow. That certainly wasn't voted on was it? States enacting rules without using democracy is lame.[/b]

We're supposeld a democracy, right? Ugh, this boils my blood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×