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

Skip to comments.

California Governor Signs Homosexual Bill Eliminating Terms ‘Husband’ and ‘Wife’
Christian News ^ | 7/10/2014 | Heather Clark

Posted on 07/13/2014 4:45:08 PM PDT by markomalley

The governor of California has signed a bill into law that redefines marriage and replaces the terms ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ with the generic term ‘spouse.’

Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 1306 on Monday, which will take effect on January 1, 2015.

“Under existing law, a reference to ‘husband’ and ‘wife,’ ‘spouses,’ or ‘married persons,’ or a comparable term, includes persons who are lawfully married to each other and persons who were previously lawfully married to each other, as is appropriate under the circumstances of the particular case,” it reads. “The bill would delete references to ‘husband’ or ‘wife’ in the Family Code and would instead refer to a ‘spouse,’ and would make other related changes.”

The legislation had been presented by Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to overturn the 9th Circuit ruling that declared California’s Proposition 8 unconstitutional. The matter hails back to 2008 when voters in California were presented with a ballot initiative asking if residents wished to enshrine marriage in the state as being between a man and woman. The measure, which sought to add an amendment to the state Constitution to protect the Biblical definition of marriage from infringement, passed by five percentage points.

However, with the courts ruling against Proposition 8, Leno sought to likewise change California law to alter the definition of marriage and reflect same-sex nuptials.

“I am pleased Governor Brown has recognized the importance of this bill, which makes it explicitly clear in state law that every loving couple has the right to marry in California,” Leno commented in a statement this week. “This legislation removes outdated and biased language from state codes and recognizes all married spouses equally, regardless of their gender.”

But Christians in the state have expressed disappointment over the matter, opining that the government has been wrong to override the will of the people.

“This bill continues the pattern we’ve been seeing the last few years of politicians ignoring the people to advance the agenda of marriage redefinition,” Matthew McReynolds, attorney with the Pacific Justice Institute in California, told Christian News Network. “What these politicians don’t want people to know is that their actions are illegitimate. Contary to media myths, Prop. 8 has not been invalidated on a statewide basis. Instead, these politicians are exercising raw power, ignoring the Constitution and counting on the people and the courts not to hold them accountable.”

Gov. Brown also generated outrage last fall when he signed a bill that mandated insurance companies in the state to provide coverage for infertility treatments for homosexuals.

“The way the law works, gay and lesbian couples would simply have to testify that they have been having sex for a year without producing a child to be considered ‘infertile,’ which is [100% of the time], since baby-making requires necessary components missing in homosexual activity,” commented writer Ben Shapiro.

“It doesn’t mean situations in which two gay men are both infertile and incapable of impregnating a surrogate mother,” he continued. “It means situations in which gay or lesbian couples can’t make a baby by having sex with each other. In other words, every single gay and lesbian couple on the planet.”


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: alreadyposted; california; homosexualagenda; oldernews; prop8
Redefining words by legislative action. Great.

Of course, if a pro-life state attempts to legally affirm the definition of personhood to include ALL humans from the moment of conception, the courts would bend over themselves to declare that unconstitutional.

1 posted on 07/13/2014 4:45:08 PM PDT by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: markomalley

And they just destroyed traditional marriage which they said they weren’t going to do.


2 posted on 07/13/2014 4:49:45 PM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (Pubbies = national collectivists; Dems = international collectivists; We need a second party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Banning words. This is exactly as stupid as any such nonsense that came out of the Soviet Union.

So if a Priest says in conclusion of a ceremony : I now pronounce you Husband and Wife”...What? What happens by law?


3 posted on 07/13/2014 4:49:49 PM PDT by TalBlack (Evil doesn't have a day job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

California and the US sink ever deeper into perversion.


4 posted on 07/13/2014 4:54:36 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Everyone knows what a marriage is, and what a husband and a wife are.

Everyone is also free to pretend otherwise. (Though not without consequences.)


5 posted on 07/13/2014 4:57:47 PM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Lunatics


6 posted on 07/13/2014 4:58:00 PM PDT by Bullish (You ever notice that liberalism really just amounts to anti-morality?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marron

So on those occasions when I take my wife to California I can no longer call her my wife? Astounding.

CC


7 posted on 07/13/2014 4:58:16 PM PDT by Captain Compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

The US has become Sodom and Gomorrah


8 posted on 07/13/2014 4:59:17 PM PDT by realcleanguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Whatever happened to marriage being a sacrament of the church? Never mind, taxes got in the way.
9 posted on 07/13/2014 5:00:00 PM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

10 posted on 07/13/2014 5:06:46 PM PDT by CodeToad (Arm Up! They Are!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

i will always use those terms.

fu jb


11 posted on 07/13/2014 5:08:10 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man ( Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Link to the full-text Free Republic thread.

12 posted on 07/13/2014 5:10:39 PM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

More than that. He’s re-writing the Bible. I’m 63 and can’t have too much time left. Thank God!


13 posted on 07/13/2014 5:13:18 PM PDT by VerySadAmerican (Liberals were raised by women or wimps. And they're all stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

How about, “I now pronounce you top and bottom”?


14 posted on 07/13/2014 5:19:44 PM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain Compassion

But gays often call their sweeties “husbands” and lesbians talk of their “wives.” Is that still permitted?


15 posted on 07/13/2014 5:20:16 PM PDT by heye2monn (MO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

If I ever tell my wife that she is my spouse, she’ll kill me. California needs a good 12.0 earthquake.


16 posted on 07/13/2014 5:21:24 PM PDT by ExCTCitizen (I'm ExCTCitizen and I approve this reply. If it does offend Libs, I'm NOT sorry...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExCTCitizen

An 8.5 will take care of the problem.


17 posted on 07/13/2014 5:29:50 PM PDT by sasquatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Your government tackling the really important issue of our time.

And to think all this good stuff they do for us cost us only half of our income.

18 posted on 07/13/2014 5:31:11 PM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TalBlack
"So if a Priest says in conclusion of a ceremony : I now pronounce you Husband and Wife”...What? What happens by law?"

Nothing. It's about language in the statutes, not language that people choose to use.

19 posted on 07/13/2014 5:34:25 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Captain Compassion
"So on those occasions when I take my wife to California I can no longer call her my wife? Astounding."

Huh? What would be stopping you?

20 posted on 07/13/2014 5:38:00 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Nothing like a heaping portion of moral bankruptcy to go along with the fiscal stuff...
21 posted on 07/13/2014 5:38:11 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Next, they will outlaw “mom” and “dad”.


22 posted on 07/13/2014 5:40:08 PM PDT by Reddy (B.O. stinks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlo
From the text:

420. (a) No particular form for the ceremony of marriage is required for solemnization of the marriage, but the parties shall declare, in the physical presence of the person solemnizing the marriage and necessary witnesses, that they take each other as spouses.

23 posted on 07/13/2014 5:51:12 PM PDT by TaxPayer2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

This would have been thought an impossible joke even during the Clinton era.

As it is, it is of course to weep for California. Which even decades ago, some wags called Fornicalia.

People probably tire of hearing this, but it’s not so much a disease, as a symptom. Man’s folly can’t walk away with a situation this grossly until belief in God has vanished.

Whether or not literal brimstone will follow (I don’t know) it’s going to punish itself.

We will probably also see much more church attention to the matter of marriage in all serious segments of Christendom, now that the church obviously can’t count on the government to carry its water.


24 posted on 07/13/2014 5:52:52 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

Traditional marriage isn’t dependent on how the state defines it.

Freegards


25 posted on 07/13/2014 5:54:08 PM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TaxPayer2000

Someone will want to wed a talking parrot now?


26 posted on 07/13/2014 5:54:11 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: TaxPayer2000

As it says, “No particular form for the ceremony of marriage is required...”. The passage isn’t prescribing the wording. None of that is the text to be used. None of it is in quotes.

It only says the parties must take each other as spouses. A husband and wife are spouses.


27 posted on 07/13/2014 6:33:14 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; Jack Hydrazine; TalBlack; LearsFool; Captain Compassion; Travis McGee; ...

Husband and wife are not the only words they’ll go after.

All words referencing relationships that also identifies the sex of that person would need to be modifies, such as, aunts and uncles, grandfather and grandmother, nieces and nephews, mother-in-law and father-in-law, son-in-law and daughter-in-law... and others.


28 posted on 07/13/2014 7:06:31 PM PDT by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aquila48

How about man, woman, male, female. Got to change these sexist words as well.

CC


29 posted on 07/13/2014 7:21:13 PM PDT by Captain Compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Question for FReepers:

Here's a quote from the law: “Under existing law, a reference to ‘husband’ and ‘wife,’ ‘spouses,’ or ‘married persons,’ or a comparable term, includes persons who are lawfully married to each other and persons who were previously lawfully married to each other, as is appropriate under the circumstances of the particular case,” it reads.

See the word "includes"? Doesn't it make you feel good, because it means that there are other definitions too, somewhere, but that those other definitions now also include these new definitions?

What, it doesn't mean that? So "includes" means that these are the ONLY definitions for marriage now?

I agree. That's EXACTLY what "includes" means.

Now, with that understanding, read THIS:

One Stone, Two Powers: How Chief Justice Roberts Saved America

P.S. No, this post is not off-topic. This is how the Rats can be beaten - by understanding HOW they get away with all their crap, and what it's serious limitations really are. IF, that is, anyone wants to LEARN.

30 posted on 07/13/2014 8:17:24 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

When does this crap get so ridiculous that we stand up and say “No More!”?


31 posted on 07/13/2014 9:01:09 PM PDT by Washi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlo

Are you in support of this, or do you just not think it’s a big deal?


32 posted on 07/13/2014 9:05:00 PM PDT by Washi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Washi

I just don’t think it’s a big deal. It’s just changing the statute language to conform to pre-existing reality. It has absolutely no practical effect.


33 posted on 07/13/2014 9:21:23 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
God's point of view:

Genesis 1

English Standard Version (ESV)

26 Then God said, “Let us make man[h] in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

27 So God created man in his own image,
    in the image of God he created him;
    male and female he created them.

28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.


34 posted on 07/13/2014 9:35:42 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlo
It’s just changing the statute language to conform to pre-existing reality.

So how quickly does "pre-existing reality" shift before it starts to alarm you?

35 posted on 07/13/2014 10:05:35 PM PDT by Washi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Washi
"So how quickly does "pre-existing reality" shift before it starts to alarm you?"

I don't think that question makes any sense.

All that matters here is that this change is simply an update to the wording of the statutes. Gays can already get married. This isn't enabling that. This has no practical effect, it is just fixing what is otherwise nonsensical wording. The statute said "husband" and "wife" even though *it's already the law* that two guys or two girls can get married.

You don't need to pretend that this is the end of the world in order to demonstrate disapproval of gay marriage.

36 posted on 07/13/2014 10:12:48 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: mlo
You don't need to pretend that this is the end of the world in order to demonstrate disapproval of gay marriage.

And you don't need to be flippant and dismissive to demonstrate your obvious support for the same.

37 posted on 07/13/2014 10:18:29 PM PDT by Washi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Washi

Flippant and dismissive? Try reading some of the comments on the threads about this. It’s too bad you consider pointing out the reality as some failure of a litmus test. Truth is it’s own defense.


38 posted on 07/13/2014 10:22:21 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ExCTCitizen

A good 12.0 might just bounce some common sense into their heads.


39 posted on 07/13/2014 10:32:44 PM PDT by MaxMax (Pay Attention and you'll be pissed off too! FIRE BOEHNER, NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mlo
Flippant and dismissive? Try reading some of the comments on the threads about this. It’s too bad you consider pointing out the reality as some failure of a litmus test. Truth is it’s own defense.

Yes. Flippant and dismissive.

I've read all of the comments on this thread.

What you see as "pointing out reality", I see as one more incremental step in normalizing the abnormal.

What you see as "truth" is not what was "truth" even a decade ago.

The degenerate left, with your full support, keep moving the goal posts of normalcy, nature, and morality and then belittling those that point out the fact that the goal posts are being moved.

Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman: a Husband and a Wife.

Changing the language of the laws governing marriage to erase the terms Husband and Wife is a deliberate attempt to undermine the traditional meaning of marriage.

That you see that as "no big deal" speaks volumes about your own politics, your own character, and your own morality.

40 posted on 07/13/2014 10:49:12 PM PDT by Washi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Those words must be burned. They are doubleplusungood.


41 posted on 07/14/2014 2:52:33 AM PDT by jimfree (In November 2016 my 14 y/o granddaughter will have more quality exec experience than Barack Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Im 62 y.o., officially.
This second time around boyfriend of Linda
Ronstat, who thinks he is sane, while
wearing the blazer with the word governor
on the back, aint about to make me not
say anything about husbands, wives, and
the ex’s.

Taking out those words, to make it fair for all
those queers, aint gonna work.


42 posted on 07/14/2014 5:18:48 AM PDT by Terry L Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Washi

You are just being ridiculous. I corrected posters who seemed to think that a preacher would get in trouble for doing the traditional marriage ceremony, or who thought they could be arrested for saying “husband”. And look at your carry on. That says something about you, not me.


43 posted on 07/14/2014 7:20:44 AM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | 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