California bans 'brides,' 'grooms'

More lunacy from California:

California bans ‘brides,’ 'grooms’
License rejected for couple seeking traditional marriage

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.

Pastor Doug Bird of Abundant Life Fellowship in Roseville, Calif., was alarmed to find the state now rejects the traditional terms after he officiated his first marriage ceremony last week following the California Supreme Court decision to overturn Proposition 22.

The couple had written the words “bride” and “groom” next to “Party A” and “Party B” because they wanted to be legally recognized as husband and wife.

However, the Placer County marriage license was **denied.
Full Story

Why don’t we just all have ourselves genetically-engineered so that we don’t have sexes at all, and we reproduce by pollination, like plants?

Well, from a strictly Biblical sense, I guess you could say that since we are all part of Christ’s bride, the Church, then it prevents men from being grooms and brides, which can be confusing. I guess…

Not that I really agree with what they are doing, just trying to rationalize it somehow…it was a stretch, I know.

Actually, what’s going on in California by the Pink Mafia and their liberal fellow travellers was foretold a long time ago by the Apostle Paul:

**"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another…Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done…Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."**

(Romans 1:18-32)

I guess Paul was a religious fanatic and a Taliban-like, intolerant, uninclusive, undiversified, un-multicultural neo-con, wasn’t he?

Probably voted for George Bush, too. :eek:

Grrrrr Botanist anger:mad:

Plants do have sex in fact they have an alteration of generations. A male organism, pollen, a female organism, the ovule, and then you have the sporophyte (the plant you see) which comes from that. Are you saying we should be sporophytes? If you want that you need another generation. If you want an example of asexual reproduction go with binary fission or fragmentation or budding or vegitative…

Please learn basic biology when talking about homosexuality.

He was, remember what he did to christians before his “conversion”. hehehehehe

I don’t see how this is “more” lunacy. This came as a result of the Supreme Court decision a few months ago that gave homosexuals the right to marry. Marriage license forms were redesigned to say Party A and Party B rather than Bride and Groom.

The issue will be on the ballot in November and the citizens – rather than the courts – will make the decision on whether marriage should be between a man and woman rather than two people of the same sex. The ballot measure is a constitutional amendment so the Supreme Court won’t be able to declare it unconstitutional if it passes.

Lets not be too surprised…that state elected a movie actor ,(!) to be governor and look at what he has done . People deserve what they get…also Cardinal Mahoney is in the same club as Arnold and has distanced himself eons away from Christianity and the Free enterprise system. This is a logical step,in fact one should not be surprised if in the next several years ,public signs of Catholic Christianity will be banned as hate crimes etc. .How many times I have been to school board meetings and its almost empty…or town board meetings the same thing…the public has been conditioned to react only on cue like Pavlovs mutts…the original ruling on abortions was fairly narrow…then slowly expanded to cover anything and at any time…the word marriage may soon be changed to allow a human to ‘marry’ his pet turtle or her favorite plant…why not…check out the words that have been deliberately re-defined to suit the latest agenda of the establishment…so on and on it goes…like a twirl just before sinking into the sewer ,our once great nation is dropping. Look at the outrageous Hobsons choice we again have…evil a or evil b…you must pick one or we will smirk and call you a bad person who wants to sit out an election etc…mmm,come to think of it,that expression…‘sit on it’ used to be written on a wall at the beginning of happy days sitcom.

I have heard that support for gay marriage among young people is up around 70 percent while among older people it is about the reverse. Clearly as time passes all of the prohibitions against same gender marriage could be repealed. And since churches have made this tie between one of their sacraments and the state, it could very well come to pass that churches will be forced to perform same gender marriages. Perhaps churches should separate their sacraments from the state’s activities to head this off.

This is just a thought.

  • kathie :bowdown:

I would just point out that he wasn’t the first actor we elected governor. The last one went on to be a two-term president so it wasn’t just Californians who voted for him and it would appear that being an actor is appropriate preparation for political leadership.

So far the Church has been able to hold other standards for marriage. For example, people who are legally divorced can get a marriage license but the Church can refuse to marry them. So there is a separation between the state’s interest in legal marriage and the Church’s interest in valid marriage.

It would explain why actors and celebrities think anyone cares about their political opinions.

What do you want to bet that the bureaucrat that decided to reject the liscence was a homosexual herself, himself or itself.

Believe it or not I think we have them on the run.

More people are waking up and fighting this kind of anti-social madness.

Ah cain’t he’p it…Ah’s jes’ a iggerant hick, 'n Ah doan know nuthin 'bout no tolerunce er enny o’them thar “pergessive” thangs. Hail, Ah still think the Bible ment whut it sed t’begin with, and them verses like Hebrews 13:8. Ah doan even bleeve in evvylooshun, howm Ah spose to’know ennythang 'bout bi’logy?

You dont have to believe in evoltuion to know basic reproductive biology, though it would make more sense in the big picture, but if you want to convince any secularist about anything to do with sex and biology you should know something about biology. Other wise you do sound “iggerant”, after all you did not even know that plants have sex.

Were you homeschooled by a zoocentrist?:stuck_out_tongue:

Niiiiiice… anyone know if they are planning to go back and edit old licenses to fit into this paradigm? If so, I am ordering copies of mine BEFORE they do it… I was married in CA and I like my license the way it is thanks, bride, groom, and all. :rolleyes:


I am praying that we get the amendment passed, or else I may have to change my wedding plans and get married in another state

Yippeee lets all clap for ignorance!

So how is my favourite pro-gay manga named member doing?


You obviously don’t know California. If the system will copy the actual original license, You’ll get the original bride/groom. California won’t spend a dime to change all of those records, believe me. They are so short of money right now, but even if they had it, they wouldn’t spend it for that. Now, if copies of old licenses are reduced to computer records, you will probably get party A/party B because then all they have to do is change the print statement. If you do get a party A/party B printout for a license record, you should write them and say that the names need to be reversed because actually party B proposed to party A, so party B should be party A and party A should be party B. That should keep them busy for a while. Ha, ha!

  • kathie :bowdown:

Oh, cool! I haz creepy stalker nao. :smiley:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit