But They Said It Wouldn't Affect Our Marriages

We've heard that often during the marriage debate. Every time we spoke out against redefining marriage, there was always someone on the anti-marriage side suggesting that we shouldn't really care because recognizing perverse relationships as marriages wouldn't affect our marriages in any way. Then, once the issue had been "settled" (e.g. once bill C-38 had been forced through the Commons and the Senate), the Ontario Liberal government had officially abolished such politically incorrect terms as "wife" and "husband", "bride" and "groom", replacing them with gender-neutral "spouses" or "partners"...

Same thing now happens in California. Couples that are biologically incapable of forming marital relationships are now being recognized as officially "married". At the same time, the state no longer recognizes traditional couples as brides and grooms or as wives and husbands. They are now "party A" and "party B".

A pastor in Roseville, California says he was shocked to find that the government no longer uses - and no longer recoginizes - the words “bride” and “groom” on that licence. Pastor Doug Bird of the Abundant Life Fellowship says a couple he was marrying wants to be legally recognized as husband and wife, but when they pencilled in the words “bride” and “groom” next to the words “Party A” and “Party B” as printed on the new form, the paperwork was returned to him. Bird says the he also received a letter from the County Clerk saying that the alteration was “unacceptable”, and that the licence “does not comply with California State registration laws.”

More >>>

Ironically, if the couple sues the county clerk, the very same court which ruled to change the definition of marriage for the sake of "inclusiveness" would most likely dismiss their case; be that on the grounds that their desire to be officially recognized as husband and wife is "based on religious beliefs" - or that words "bride" and "groom" are "offensive" to those who are more comfortable with gender-neutral "party A" and "party B".

Luckily, Californians will soon have the opportunity to vote on a proposition that would override the court decision and reinstate the traditional definition of marriage. The governing elite did their best to turn the public opinion against the proposition by adding the words "eliminating rights" to both the title and the summary. Hopefully this case makes it clear that unless people support the proposition which allegedly eliminates someone's implied rights, the state will eliminate their rights to be recognized as husbands and wives, demeaning their own marriages to mere partnerships between "party A" and "party B".