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

I'm trying to figure out how this would affect me in any way whatsoever so I can be angry about it too.

Yeah, I got nothing...

 

DNA isnt examined in ??? 99. something percent of children, and in the above scenario, the husband would only need to make the assertion that the child is not his in a court action. Or the biological father doing so.

 

No, the laws and documentation do not match reality of the legal unit anymore. If there is two wives, or two husbands forming the two person unit, there is, by definition not enough space for a husband and a wife and no coverage for one of the wives or husbands. You are passing off now archaic language as 'un-pc' when the problem is the language is likely to be blatantly false in its description of the unit a certain percentage of the time. . Instead, the governor is requiring that state documents are written to describe the legal parties,in language that will actually work structurally for the purpose intended, all of the time.

Why would you keep making boxes that will no longer fit the shape and size of what you will be putting in them, when you can make boxes that better fit the shape and size of what you will use?

 

Words in my head...words...worrrrrrrrrrrrds...

Somebody please make it stop.

 

The specific case that I have personal knowledge of: The husband was in prison at the time the woman became pregnant. When the child was born, they put the biological father's name on the birth certificate so that he and his wife would receive custody of the child. The husband's probation officer discovered what had happened and had the child removed from the biological father's home and eventually placed with the mother. The court refused to look at DNA testing asserting that the child already had a legal father, the husband that could not possibly have fathered it.

 

I dont believe you for even a moment.

 

And you just verified my comment.

 

Bureaucrats, politicians and lawyers love to create problems. More problems = more money.

 

In the military they refer to the wife or husband as the spouse and as done so for decades. Sorry to break this news to you as you will be crushed.

 

Then we need to revisit your definition of what it means to 'satisfy modern political correctness'. My understanding and yours do not match.

 

That's too bad because your opinion is very important to me.

 

Traditional marriage still exists. No war to eliminate it. It doesn't destabilize nothing. At least no where near what divorce does.
Nothing gets destroyed. Take a breath, life will not change for you at all.

 

Are you being forbidden to call you spouse your wife? NO. Only the gov't is changing it wording. You can call your wife/spouse anything your little heart desires.

 

Your attempt at revising history is noted. They were never offered. They had to be fought for in the few states that ever had them - all of which now offer full marriage recognition. My state, on the other hand, has an amendment that effectively bans any form of legal status for same-sex couples for any purpose.

So let's just dispense with this nonsense that the anti-gay were ever willing to consider "civil unions" as a compromise. The only thing the anti-gay are interested in is compromising the rights of gay people, period.

 

Your attempt to dishonestly conflate marriage law with anti-discrimination law to falsely frame the argument is also noted. That said, I'll acknowledge that you could be right, if for no other reason than the triumph of religious belief over reason hardly being a new phenomenon.

 

Most rational thinking people are not confused by that. Only those who have bought into this modern political correctness are confused.

Confusion and the inability to accept standards is a way of life for people like that.

 

I believe you are incorrect. Several states initiated civil unions. It just wasn't enough. It didn't change the traditional definition of marriage, so the left dismissed them.

 

Because "separate but equal" worked so well the first time.

 

You made it up. Probation officers cant have children removed from their homes.

 

Traditional marriage existed to improve the well being of children that only heterosexual couples produce. To give more children the benefit of both their mother and father in the home. And it is being replaced by this new marriage that is intended to win more respect and dignity for gays. Because a preference in the law for biological parents, offends the gays who cant participate. Sad state of society when avoiding offending the gays takes precedence over the well being of children.

 

Hope it's soon, and take Massachusetts with it. The Nation would be better off without these Liberal bookends.


Not really surprised about this story. Seems a logical next step for California. One more step towards trying to pretend there is no difference between a natural mating pair....the life builder of all species, and 2 guys or girls.


There is a difference, and everyone knows it whether you like the words or not.

 

You would have a better argument here if heterosexual couples actually did a better job at traditional marriage. But when half of them end in divorce, there are going to be broken families and the need for alternatives. If you're truly concerned about the well being of children, then you should be all for as many loving, stable marriages as possible, regardless of the sexes involved.

 

Despite the biological limitations, same-sex couples have been successfully raising children for decades. It's time you accept reality.

 

I didn't make anything up. But you are correct, a probation officer cannot personally take a child out of a home. A probation officer can contact CPS and request a child be removed from a home, which is what happened.

 

Civil unions weren't intended to be "separate but equal". They were intended to provide legal protections to gay couples akin to those for straight married people without changing the traditional definition of marriage.

You know the concept don't you? ..... Equal protection under the law. But then equal protection under the law was not the motive for the angry, militant homosexual crowd. They just wanted to destroy a tradition which is the foundation of civilization. For selfish " in your face" purposes.