Heterosexuals across California — or least one couple in Sacramento — are outraged — OUTRAGED! — by how the Homosexual Agendaists are trampling on their Sacred and Inalienable Rights!…
Heterosexuals across California — or least one couple in Sacramento — are outraged — OUTRAGED! — by how the Homosexual Agendaists are trampling on their Sacred and Inalienable Rights!
How is this happening? Are they being forbidden to marry each other? Are they being told that their love is wrong, unnatural, subject to criminal penalties? Are they being denied the right to get married in a religious ceremony in their own church?
No, it’s something worse … far worse … they aren’t being called “bride” and “groom” on their state wedding license application. Egads!
Last month, Rachel Bird exchanged vows with Gideon Codding in a church wedding in front of family and friends. As far as Bird is concerned, she is a bride. To the state of California, however, she is either “Party A” or “Party B.”
Those are the terms that have replaced “bride” and “groom” on the state’s new gender-neutral marriage licenses. And to Bird and Codding, that is unacceptable. “We are traditionalists – we just want to be called bride and groom,” said Bird, 25, who works part time for her father’s church. “Those words have been used for generations and now they just changed them.”
In May, after the California State Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage legal, the courts mandated state officials to provide gender-neutral licenses and other marriage forms. “Bride” and “groom” became “Party A” and “Party B.”
Rachel and Gideon are taking a principled stand. They simply aren’t getting married.
Or, rather, they’ve been married in their church, but aren’t filling out a marriage license. As a result, they can’t get spousal benefits or anything like that. And it’s all the fault of the Homosexualistas!
Sure, they can call each other “bride” and “groom,” as can their friends, their family, their church, even strangers on the street. But those things aren’t important — the whole meaning of a marriage is, as we all know, all about what’s on that little form you turn into the government.
Rachel Bird described her position as “personal – not religious.”
“We just feel that our rights have been violated,” she said.
Right! The state police come and beat you with bludgeons every time you try to use the term “bride” or “groom,” the bastards! They also burned all your “His” and “Her” towels, insisted that you wear unisex uniforms for the ceremony, and made you flip a coin to determine the content of your marriage vows!
To some, the couple’s stand may seem frivolous. But others believe “bride” and “groom” are terms that are too important for the state to set aside. “Those who support (same-sex marriage) say it has no impact on heterosexuals,” said Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute. “This debunks that argument.”
Yes, it’s true — same-sex marriage does have a measurable impact on heterosexuals. For one thing, it makes it harder to book a church and a reception hall in June. Also, there’s a chronic shortage of tuxes. And, of course, there’s the Vile, Cruel Insult of a governmental form referring to “Party A” and “Party B.”
I mean, think of it! How would you like to get hitched knowing that, forever, in the eyes of the State of California, you’re on the “B” list while your spouse is on the “A” list? How rude of those selfish Homosexualists to impose their A/B ordering on the population at large!
For now, they are busy with their family (she has two children from a previous marriage and he has three) and starting their new life.
“We feel like a a bride and groom,” said Bird.
Not according to the State of California …
(To be fair, I think the terms “Party A” and “Party B” are unaesthetic and clumsy. “Spouse A” and “B” would have been better. Regardless, this seems idiotic, especially given that until this happened, there was a whole class of people who couldn’t — not by choice, but by legal mandate — get married at all. I wish the happy couple above all the best, but, yeesh.)
(via RWW)
