one tiny soapbox: No more 'Bride' & 'Groom'?!?!
Home

Thursday, October 2

No more 'Bride' & 'Groom'?!?!


rankly, I'm appalled.

Read below (from The Pacific Justice Institue's web site) and I trust you'll see precisely why:

What's in a name? A lot, according to the California Supreme Court, which recently decided that marriage must be made available to gay couples, and "civil unions" were inadequate. Now, a Northern California couple is going to court to preserve their legal status as "bride" and "groom," after the state rejected their marriage license.

Gideon Codding and Rachel Bird were recently married in Placer County, near Sacramento. Surprised by newly-revised state forms that now designate marriage applicants as "Party A" and "Party B," Gideon and Rachel jotted an explanatory "Groom" and "Bride" next to the party names. They were stunned when, weeks later, the form was returned to Pastor Doug Bird, who officiated at the ceremony. The County's letter states that the license "does not comply with California State registration laws" - even though the official forms in use just prior to the gay marriage ruling called the marrying couple "Bride" and "Groom." Because the County refused to process their form, the Coddings are not legally married and have been prevented from accessing the many benefits available to married couples...

Just. Plain. Asinine. (Read the rest of the story.)

ibcarlos, Reformed thinker

Labels: , , ,

Comments on "No more 'Bride' & 'Groom'?!?!"

 

post a comment
ibcw © 2005-10