Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

California bans 'brides,' 'grooms' License rejected for couple seeking traditional marriage
WorldNetDaily ^ | September 08, 2008 | Chelsea Schilling

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; US: California
KEYWORDS: california; gay; healthypeople; healthypeople2010; homosexualagenda; inlocoparentis; license; marriage
"Queerly beloved..."
1 posted on 09/09/2008 10:15:36 AM PDT by buccaneer81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81

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.


2 posted on 09/09/2008 10:19:47 AM PDT by RexBeach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
WND at it again. The story doesn't even come close to matching the headline. If this couple had simply put their names in the boxes where their names belonged, they would have had their license without delay. But, of course, there would be no story, no hand wringing without the pretense that they were actually denied a license because they were a heterosexual couple.
3 posted on 09/09/2008 10:28:31 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81

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.....


4 posted on 09/09/2008 10:29:43 AM PDT by SECURE AMERICA ( Choice 2008 McCain =Hero, Obama = Zero. Palin = Fresh - Biden = Stale)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dmz
The bride and groom did not want to be known as "Party A" and "Party B." I don't blame them.

By your reasoning, they should have just grabbed their ankles and given in to the leftists and their gay agenda.

5 posted on 09/09/2008 10:33:03 AM PDT by buccaneer81 (Bob Taft has soiled the family name for the next century.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
Coming soon to cities and towns across California:


6 posted on 09/09/2008 10:36:41 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (I do not want to know the type of person, who does not like Sarah Palin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RexBeach
There's something very wrong with the people of California

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.

7 posted on 09/09/2008 10:50:44 AM PDT by informavoracious (The Other Guy Blinked)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81

Stop feeding the pigs!!! Go to another state to get married!!!


8 posted on 09/09/2008 10:51:36 AM PDT by unixfox (The 13th Amendment Abolished Slavery, The 16th Amendment Reinstated It !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: informavoracious; Grampa Dave; buccaneer81; dmz; SECURE AMERICA; RexBeach; All

Please see important info added on previous thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2078141/posts
(Culture War Rages On): California bans ‘brides,’ ‘grooms’


9 posted on 09/09/2008 10:53:35 AM PDT by Calpernia (Hunters Rangers - Raising the Bar of Integrity http://www.barofintegrity.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
The bride and groom did not want to be known as "Party A" and "Party B." I don't blame them. By your reasoning, they should have just grabbed their ankles and given in to the leftists and their gay agenda.

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.

10 posted on 09/09/2008 11:04:20 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81

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.


11 posted on 09/09/2008 11:07:39 AM PDT by AlaskaErik (I served and protected my country for 31 years. Democrats spent that time trying to destroy it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dmz
That you think of anal sex in this context is more than a bit disturbing.

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?

12 posted on 09/09/2008 11:12:06 AM PDT by buccaneer81 (Bob Taft has soiled the family name for the next century.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dmz
How many times, when signing a legal document, have you demanded the legal documents not refer to the parties as parties?

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.

13 posted on 09/09/2008 11:16:40 AM PDT by buccaneer81 (Bob Taft has soiled the family name for the next century.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RexBeach
Photobucket Party A to Party B: "OMG, did you see her ass?!!" Okay Okay no more...
14 posted on 09/09/2008 12:04:14 PM PDT by Skenderbej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AlaskaErik

See post #14


15 posted on 09/09/2008 12:06:37 PM PDT by Skenderbej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Skenderbej

LOL!!!!

Well, I guess the ass can always bray for her?


16 posted on 09/09/2008 12:19:38 PM PDT by RexBeach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dmz; buccaneer81; sheprd

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.


17 posted on 09/09/2008 5:15:09 PM PDT by E-Mat (Made in China = Arms for Tyrants)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81

Pictures of the license before and after?


18 posted on 09/09/2008 5:16:30 PM PDT by E-Mat (Made in China = Arms for Tyrants)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E-Mat

Great post. Thanks!


19 posted on 09/09/2008 5:16:51 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (Bob Taft has soiled the family name for the next century.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: E-Mat
Before:

20 posted on 09/09/2008 5:20:42 PM PDT by E-Mat (Made in China = Arms for Tyrants)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: E-Mat
They seem to vary from county to county. Here's one from San Diego County that says Bride and Groom:

This one from San Francisco County says "Applicant 1" and "Applicant 2."


21 posted on 09/09/2008 5:26:17 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (Bob Taft has soiled the family name for the next century.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: E-Mat
After:

(Not a perfect comparison: one is an application, the other is the license.)

22 posted on 09/09/2008 5:27:02 PM PDT by E-Mat (Made in China = Arms for Tyrants)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: E-Mat

As tough as my week has been,
I’m still glad my job isn’t issuing those new licenses.


23 posted on 09/09/2008 5:29:49 PM PDT by E-Mat (Made in China = Arms for Tyrants)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: E-Mat
I’m still glad my job isn’t issuing those new licenses.

I'd be out of a job and (knowing the SF way of life) probably in jail.

24 posted on 09/09/2008 5:33:00 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (Bob Taft has soiled the family name for the next century.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
Welcome to the wonderful world of lowest-common-denominator political correctness. Since same-sex "marriage" is exactly like traditional marriage (/sarc) any differentiation between the two types is unthinkable. The state must make this impossible.
25 posted on 09/10/2008 5:48:17 AM PDT by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson