Skip to comments.California bans 'brides,' 'grooms' License rejected for couple seeking traditional marriage
Posted on 09/09/2008 10:15:36 AM PDT by buccaneer81
California bans 'brides,' 'grooms' License rejected for couple seeking traditional marriage Posted: September 08, 2008 9:05 pm Eastern
By WorldNetDaily By Chelsea Schilling © 2008 WorldNetDaily
ROSEVILLE, Calif. "Brides" and "grooms" are no longer allowed to marry in the State of California.
That privilege is only extended to individuals who allow themselves to be called "Party A" and "Party B" on marriage licenses.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
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.
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.....
By your reasoning, they should have just grabbed their ankles and given in to the leftists and their gay agenda.
Rather 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.
Stop feeding the pigs!!! Go to another state to get married!!!
Please see important info added on previous thread:
(Culture War Rages On): California bans ‘brides,’ ‘grooms’
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.
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.
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?
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.
See post #14
Well, I guess the ass can always bray for her?
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.
Pictures of the license before and after?
Great post. Thanks!
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.