Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Slap in the Face Against Traditional Marriage

How ridiculous is it going to get before the nonsense is stopped???

California bans 'brides,' 'grooms'
License rejected for couple seeking traditional marriage



Pastor Doug Bird of Abundant Life Fellowship in Roseville, Calif., was alarmed to find the state now rejects the traditional terms after he officiated his first marriage ceremony last week following the California Supreme Court decision to overturn Proposition 22.

The couple had written the words "bride" and "groom" next to "Party A" and "Party B" because they wanted to be legally recognized as husband and wife.

However, the Placer County marriage license was denied.

"I received back the license and a letter from the Placer County Clerk/Recorder stating that the license 'does not comply with California State registration laws,'" Bird said in a statement from the Pacific Justice Institute.

So...I wonder where the advocates who usually say, "how does my same-sex "marriage" negatively affect yours?"

Well...here ya go!

This is only the beginning.

God save us from this madness!


HT: World Net Daily

Additional resource:

Alliance Defense Fund and Family Research Council's letter to thousands of pastors informing them of their free speech rights.


Tom said...

What madness? They altered a form they shouldn't have. Would they be less married if the form simply read "Party A" and "Party B"? Would anyone call either of them Party A or Party B? Was the pastor forced to say, "You may now kiss Party B?"


Anonymous said...


Logic and reason are not permitted on this blog. Please take your post elsewhere.

Thank you.

Kevin said...

This seems trivial when I think that I could not get married for the first 16 1/2 years.
Besides, if these people didn't like the official government forms, they could go to another state.
Do I smell an Alliance Defense League lawyer somewhere in this story?

Christinewjc said...

Tom, Anonymous and Kevin,

You all do realize that this blog exists for the purpose of protecting and defending God's plan (biblical) for marriage - right?

The book of Genesis tells us that God created man and woman to be a complementary match, and it says "for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."

Regardless of personal opinion, Christians believe the Bible to be from God. Therefore, we must recognize that He intends marriage to be for two people of the opposite sex.

When God's Word states "for this reason" (some translations say "for this purpose") it reiterates that it is God's desire for us to have this type of sexual, physical, and spiritual union. The reason? Because it is the most fulfilling kind of life possible. There is no doubt that our Creator's intention was for heterosexual marriage to be a part of that fulfilling life.

People can accept or reject this. But, for me, He (God) knows what is best for us.

As far as "rights" and the law is concerned, it is "we the people" who should be making the decision about the nature of marriage. When just a few liberal left leaning ideologue judges pass a previously non-existent "law," while negating the votes of millions of people at the same time, we are no longer living in the democratic republic that the Founding Fathers envisioned for our nation.

Obviously, due to your sexual preferences, each of you do not agree with the Prop. 8 CA Constitutional Amendment. However, it is necessary because of the fact that these types of decisions belong in the hands of the people, not by judicial fiat. There is no doubt in my mind that the CA judges used their power irresponsibly. Prop. 8 will permanently correct the wrong decision of the court. CA will re-join the 28 other states that have already voted for the definition of marriage to remain the union of one man and one woman.

Carlotta said...

Kevin, would this still have been "trivial" if you and your partner were considered "bride and groom?"

Which one of you is the bride and who's the groom?

Perhaps that's offensive to you and rightly so, necessitating the change of words. Well, just as bride and groom may have been offensive to you and other homosexual couples, 'party A' and 'party B' is just as offensive to many of us who cherish the words with their sacred meaning, "bride and groom."

Christinewjc said...


I did not approve your last comment because of the final statement. If you want to write such things, you are free to do so at your own blog. But not here.

Christinewjc said...


Your last comment has not been approved for the same reason that Tom's was rejected.

If you will notice, I have written "express your support for Biblical marriage" below the "leave your comment" phrase. I am not allowing electioneering opposite of what this blog is representing.

Kevin said...

Hi Christine,
Ah, I get it. I never saw those words "Express your support for Biblical Marriage." I've left comments before here but you haven't pointed it out before.
You can delete this one too, but I should let you know that not everyone agrees with your religious views. But at least I will attempt to discuss them with you. Not here though. Clearly you only want people who agree with you to leave comments.

And may I point out something that was written towards a comment you posted recently on another blog: your comment was deleted because the author disagreed with you. You didn't like it. I guess I feel the same...

Christinewjc said...


I went ahead and posted your comment because it didn't contain the electioneering messages that you and Tom had previously posted.

I don't mind discussions with those who disagree. But I do have the right to select which comments are accepted or rejected.

Let me be more specific. Let's say you had a blog for your ideology regarding same-sex marriage. You wanted people to support your position. Would you want me to come along and write, VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 8?

Kevin said...

Hi Christine,
I have a blog that is against what I call the anti-gay crusaders (in reality it is called Kevin's Space). People go there and occasionally leave comments. I let them, even though they are against me and my rights. Gary did this recently and I just let the conversation go as long as he and Cass wanted it to go.
I know that there are people out there who are against my views. I expect people to voice those views. It doesn't take anything away from my blog when someone disagrees with me. I don't want it to appear as a rubber stamp for my views. And who knows, I might learn something from these people who are arguing against me.
So yes, come to my blog and say Vote Yes on Prop. 8! Of course I'll respond, but I won't get rid of your comment. And as I said, I really never saw your words at the top of the Comment box.
As you might have guessed, I have a bit of a problem keeping quiet when I disagree with someone...