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

Yet gay people were fired from the military after serving their country until just a few years ago and gay people were being thrown in prison in this country for being gay until the mid 60's.
So again, I'm going to call BS on your posts.

As for special rights - if SSM marriage passes, it would apply to hetrosexuals as well. Equality maintained - no special rights. Try again.

 

They were fired from the military for lying on their enlistment, most people don't like liars, clearly some people don't seem to care. Prior to just recently being gay was considered a mental disorder, only through threats was that changed without any scientific backing to qualify the removal from the list...

No, its about special rights, or the gays would have been more than happy to take everyone else that would qualify along for the ride. They didn't...

 

For all of your hyperbolic claims, I haven't seen a link on any of them. Show us all how gays have been abused in this country, enlighten us to The Struggle.

 

Don't waste my time. 'Spouse' is a gender neutral reference to the members of a contract where gender is now utterly irrelevant. It isn't even a new or forced reference. Its got all that traditional history you baiters have been so infatuated with.

 

Then you are arguing for special rights for hetrosexuals since they did not take those same excluded people "along for the ride" as you put it.
Spending enough time to have over 20,000 posts on a blog would probably send off warning bells to most psychiatrists, but would it be enough to fire someone
from their job? Since the gay people I know are running multimillion dollar companies and completing million dollar contracts, I'm going to say the reasoning behind putting gay people on a psychiatric list in the first place as more of a homophobic reaction than a need for treatment.

 

And you defend that?


And you wonder why this country is circling the drain.

 

Why would it be a big deal in a legal contract. Don't see too many situations where contracts state specifically that signee A is female and signee B is male, it usually just has
space for signatures and dates.
Hardly the end of the world.

 

this is not about defending the change California has made in its marriage laws. It is about accurately reflecting the change. It is silly to retain references to 'husbands' and/or 'wives' in statutes where those references are legally archaic and no longer inclusive of all the unions under the definition. 'Spouses 1 and/or 2' is a lot less clumsy than this phase: Husband 1 and/or husband 2, Husband and/or Wife, Wife 1 and/or Wife 2.

 

Well, it's not really a ban for ordinary people. It's a change in the Family law to reflect the new reality. You are still allowed to use "husband" and "wife" in California, you just won't see those terms in the Family Code of California law.

 

What makes you think gender is utterly irrelevant? We would have this thread if it was.

 

Mine gets mad at me when I call her "My Old Lady" Can't imagine what the above would do...

- - - Updated - - -

All the governor said was that husband or wife should be changed to spouse in state documents. It is not illegal to call a husband a husband, or a wife a wife.

- - - Updated - - -

Myth. Plate tectonics is saying that Southern California is moving north, and eventually LA will be just west of San Francisco (and San Francisco won't be on the Pacific).

 

there is plenty of real marriages in this country between same gender couples, it is what it is

 

I'll specify 'legally irrelevant' in California. This thread is really about the perceived final death notice of gender relevance.

 

Keep up the dream.

 

I know I don't care who the heck marries who............as long as they don't involve me in anyway.

 

Why does a government agency need to do that in the first place?

 

Because boilerplate references to a single married couple in state law or agency , made up of one husband and one wife are no longer accurately reflect what a single marriage will be made from, in the state of California. Those state documents are invalid when two husbands marry or two wives marry. When you replace the archaic language with 'spouse' in all that boilerplate, it will include all couples that marry regardless of gender make-up. This is not contractual language created by a lawyer for each individual couple with its specific make-up. Its the same generic language sitting in there, designed as controlling to state agents and all the couples that are married in California. Nowadays we have husband/ husband or wife/ wife marriages. References to 'spouse' will always be accurate.

 

So in other words..... To satisfy modern political correctness.

 

I won't make you the best man at my wedding.

 

This is another step of a well studied strategy:

First, to call "homophobe" to anyone against homosexuality(*), in order to declare him/her as people with fear, resembling weakness.

Second, portraying "pride" of their abnormal condition.

Third, scaring the masses by imposing laws protecting homosexuality by declaring any attack to them as "hate crime".

Fourth, After the masses have been dominated by weird laws and media, new laws will be made to impose tis abnormal sexual inclination to society in general.

I still think that Californians are a bunch of cowards, because the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America gives green light to bear arms, go to the government office, and pull out the dictator who is pushing for laws against nature and humanity.

The Constitution of the United States of America was created to protect the integrity of people as individuals and as a society.

Homosexuality doesn't bring anything favorable to humans as individuals and less as society. On the contrary, homosexuality carries the greater contagious diseases, and it should be eradicated.

The God of the Bible is the wiser being of the universe when declared homosexuality as an abomination.

(*)Note: when I write homosexuality, it is in reference to any sexual act other than heterosexual.

 

Well, like it or not, there are a lot of references to husband and wife in the Family Code.

 

So then why change that unless you have something against the traditional husband and wife relationship?

 

Surprised they didn't go after the terms mother and father as well.

7611. )A man is presumed to be the natural father of a child if .......
(*)(a) He and the child's natural mother are or have been married to(*)each other and the child is born during the marriage, or within 300(*)days after the marriage is terminated by death, annulment

 

Actually, that entire law needs to be changed. If a women cheats on her husband and the resulting child is a product of the other man, the husband is considered the legal father. Even if all parties agree the actual paternity lies with the non-husband, the law requires legal paternity is the husband. Silly law, especially given todays DNA capabilities.