Moonbeam Makes the Use of the Words Husband and Wife Illegal in California

Somebody, please tell me this is a joke, satire. When I argue this subject on this board I often state that it's important for me to mean a marriage is defined as being a union between one man and one woman. After I do that, the usual suspects around here tell me my reasoning is flawed because being hung up on the definition of a word isn't a legitimate thing to complain about. Well, apparently Moonbeam thinks - if this isn't satire - that words have meaning so he's removing a few from our vocabulary.

 

Using the more generic term spouse doesn't make it illegal to use the terms husband and wife. It's not like the PC police are going to arrest you for calling your wife, your wife.

 

Old story that was bull(*)(*)(*)(*) then as it is now.

 

I think somebody else is the moonbeam around here.

 

when making law only, because there is two spouses, that is a constant, could be two husbands or two wives, so easier to use the term spouse as you do not know which it will be for legal documents and laws and such


.

 

so it is okay to call my wife..my B I T C H...i think that will get her very angry with me...

 

Satire or not, for some reason the left has declared war on traditional marriage, a tradition that in many ways stabilizes ALL society, to appease 3-5% of the population and a far less % of those who seek to even be married. Why? Good question. But it isn't about "civil rights" for the power players, it's about destroying. Just ask yourself, if they claim a consensus about GW, how do you suppose science consensus would weigh in on gay normality in nature?

 

Like I said, I don't know if this is serious or satire, but when Washington made a move to do something similar with marriage licenses then you would expect California to out-liberal them. Here's what I'm talking about:

The words “bride” and “groom” – along with “husband” and “wife” are about to become archaic language in Washington state as officials prepare to remove the terms from marriage and divorce certificates.

The words “bride” and “groom” could be replaced with “Spouse A” and “Spouse B” or “Person A” and “Person B,” Church said. Link

If this story is really accurate then the rest of the country needs to build a fence around California so the contamination doesn't spread. If it's not true, then what still makes this a story is that California is goofy enough to make this believable.

 

I don't mind being a spouse. Nothing in my marriage has changed. Does this mean I'm winning or losing a "war" I can't even see? Hard as I look, I find nothing destroyed, or even threatened. Nor do I see anything made illegal here at all. I see terminology becoming more inclusive, but I can't see how that's dangerous.

I come to the tentative conclusion that nothing actually happened here, but that never deters the wingdings who fear bogeymen under their beds.

 

Is your spouse a man or a woman?

You guys can live in your generic, white labels with black letters world, but that's not the world I grew up in or prefer. In my marriage im the man, husband and groom. My wife is a female bride and we both have all the parts we came into this world with.

 

Don't worry, we know how we are too. And if we got confused, it would take only seconds to clear it up. If you really need California to restore your preferred words so you know which one you are, you've got problems that word games can't solve for you.

Now, if they decide to try to eliminate the words "he" and "his" and "she" and "hers", I don't know what substitute they'd come up with.

 

Why should it take any time at all to clear up? Throughout all of history if a man said he was married it was automatically known to be a woman. Known, not assumed. But tradition to leftists doesn't seem to matter unless they want to partake in the traditions of traditional marriage.

There, you said it, restored. Special interest groups are now defining what the majority can and can not call itself. Are you happy with that? In order to be politically correct the left would prefer to placate 2% of the population while offending well over 50%. The people we're talking about have come up with their own labels in order to differentiate themselves from the norm, so I say let them continue to come up with more names but not names that are already taken.

You're obviously politically astute so I'm going to assume you already know there's a movement to remove the words "he" and "his" and "she" and "hers." So I dont' know what kind of trap you're setting up for me with that one.

 

Why does that bother you when a the same time some states want to put the words between a man and woman as the official wording when defining marriage, oh wait it go along with your agenda. You guy cannot whine that marriage must be defined at the State level then complain when a State does so but it does not follow your agenda, got a double standard going there?

 

If the crazy governor thinks that a man should not call his wife a wife, he must really have his panties twisted over calling her "my baby momma". After all, a gay dude can't be one of them either.

 

Hasn't Kalifornia broken off into the Pacific yet? When exactly is that 'big one' due to come?

 

None of this has changed.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not what the law says, though.

 

Not my problem if you can't honestly see the war, but I doubt that's the case, wingding.

 

Well, I didn't marry to uphold a tradition. I married because I fell in love, and after decades now, I still am.

Really? You think using more inclusive terminology has somehow become the thought police?

No, they are simply making some of the legal language and forms more inclusive and less misleading.

I don't know what you're talking about. Are you NOT a spouse?

??? Why would I do that? I know there was an effort for a while to produce generic gender-free pronouns, and it didn't work. But consider a language like French or Spanish, where every single noun must be either masculine or feminine. Or German, which adds neuter pronouns (and articles, and verb forms, and cases...) Do you suppose these quirks of language make biology different?

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, but I can't see into your imagination, and I don't share your fears. If extending equality to formerly oppressed minorities takes a war, I think you are fighting on the losing side.

 

False premise. Anti-gay people have declared that a war is being waged against traditional marriage, in order to play victim. In reality, no on is trying to eliminate what will remain the traditions surrounding the marriages of opposite-sex couples.

Utter twaddle. What is it that you imagine is being "destroyed", apart from seeing your feelings of being special and superior to gay people reflected in the law?

 

Is someone any less a husband/groom, or wife/bride if the government uses the more inclusive word "spouse" instead?

I just don't see why this is something to have a cow about.

 

It's just for legal clarification for use on state forms. You're not going to be arrested for calling your wife "wife". And again, this is what keeps you up at night? Really?

 

It didn't keep me up at all, but it sure did for the people who wrote the law, apparently.

 

Well, you sure seem to have your undies in a bunch over it.

 

False premise my ass. Hell, the left is even trying to destroy the notion of gender! GENDER! Are those opposed anti-non-gender? What stupid label do you folks have for that? I'm sure you have one.

Utter twaddle. What is it that you imagine is being "destroyed", apart from seeing your feelings of being special and superior to gay people reflected in the law?[/QUOTE]

Your destroying the very essence of man+women marriage, that's what! There are some who still respect that, although your crowd obviously dosen't. And by the way, you can stick the "special or superior" BS, too. Not my problem if your poor little feelings are hurt. Grow up!

 

Indeed, nothing is clearer than using extremely specific terms that are universally accepted and changing those terms to something generic... Wow!