more lunacy from the silly state. On Oct 4, 6:13 pm, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A man and woman have had to go to court in California because they > want to be recognized as married after officials rejected their > marriage license because it listed "bride" and "groom" instead of > "Party A" and "Party B." > > After the state Supreme Court in May expanded the rights enumerated in > the state constitution and found same-sex couples couldn't be denied > marriage rights, "Many thought we couldn't go any lower," said Brad > Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute, which is working on the case. > "We discovered actually we can." > > Gideon Codding and Rachel Bird recently were married in Placer County, > near Sacramento. However, surprised by new marriage license forms > created by state bureaucrats with "Party A" and "Party B," they jotted > an explanatory "Groom" and "Bride' next to "party" designations. > > The couple soon discovered the strength of the pro-homosexual lobby in > the state: The application was returned to Pastor Doug Bird, who > officiated, with a form letter stating the license "does not comply > with California State registration laws." > > The couple now is filing a lawsuit in Placer County asking the court > to order county officials to process the license, since without the > form's registration, "the Coddings are not legally married and have > been prevented from accessing the many benefits available to married > couples." > > "Being labeled by the state as 'Party A' and 'Party B" is demeaning," > said PJI Chief Counsel Kevin Snider. "It's shocking that we have to > litigate over whether newlyweds can call themselves a bride and > groom." > > Said Dacus, "Already, we are seeing the negative effects of gay > marriage in California, as the state is changing centuries-old > traditions to accommodate homosexuals. Unless the Protect Marriage > Initiative, Proposition 8, is approved in November, we expect a tidal > wave of new restraints and limitations to be imposed on people of > faith." > > Dacus told WND the right for a one-man, one-woman couple to be married > "was in no way invalidated by the state Supreme Court's ruling > respecting homosexual marriage." > > "This is an outright act of hostility towards the established rights > of people to be married as husband and wife, bride and groom," he > said. > > "It's one thing for the state Supreme Court to cram homosexual > marriage down the throats of people who voted for Proposition 22, it's > quite another for the state of California then to go so far as to make > it impossible for a man and woman to be married as husband and wife in > the state of California," Dacus continued. > > http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76833 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
