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 “This legislation removes outdated and biased language from state codes and recognizes all married spouses equally, regardless of their gender.”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.”
Next, they will outlaw “mom” and “dad”.
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.
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.
Traditional marriage isn’t dependent on how the state defines it.
Freegards
Someone will want to wed a talking parrot now?
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.
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.
How about man, woman, male, female. Got to change these sexist words as well.
CC
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.
When does this crap get so ridiculous that we stand up and say “No More!”?
Are you in support of this, or do you just not think it’s a big deal?
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.
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.
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.
And you don't need to be flippant and dismissive to demonstrate your obvious support for the same.
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.
A good 12.0 might just bounce some common sense into their heads.
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.
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.