{"id":2832,"date":"2008-05-22T13:51:47","date_gmt":"2008-05-22T17:51:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.orthodoxytoday.org\/blog\/2008\/05\/22\/california-is-rewriting-its-marriage-forms-for-gays\/"},"modified":"2009-11-05T13:08:10","modified_gmt":"2009-11-05T18:08:10","slug":"california-is-rewriting-its-marriage-forms-for-gays","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.orthodoxytoday.org\/blog\/2008\/05\/california-is-rewriting-its-marriage-forms-for-gays\/","title":{"rendered":"California is rewriting its marriage forms for gays"},"content":{"rendered":"

Exactly what Dennis Prager predicted will happen is now happening in California. The state is removing “bride” and “groom” from marriage licenses. Why only “2” partners?<\/em><\/p>\n

AP<\/a> | Michael R. Blood | May. 22, 2008<\/p>\n

You have to figure “bride” and “groom” are out. So, what will the California marriage license look like in the new era of same-sex marriages? Will it list “Partner A” and “Partner B”? “Intended No. 1” and “Intended No. 2”? Or will it contain just blank spaces for the betrothed?<\/p>\n

The court decision last week that legalized gay marriage in California has created a semantic puzzle with scant time to solve it. With the ruling tentatively set to take effect June 16, state bureaucrats must rapidly rewrite, print and distribute a marriage license application. <\/p>\n

The current one-page form uses “bride” and “groom” four times each, and also requires the signatures of an “unmarried man” and an “unmarried woman,” wording that is obviously out of step with the California Supreme Court ruling opening the way for gay marriages.<\/p>\n

Thousands of same-sex couples are expected to flock to the state next month to wed. But typically it takes the state months to churn out new forms.<\/p>\n

Kate Kendell, executive director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said she is not particularly worried.<\/p>\n

“This is where you don’t want the perfect to be the enemy of the good,” she said. “If people can marry and those marriages are legally recognized in compliance with the court ruling … the t’s crossed and i’s dotted on the form are the least of our concerns.”<\/p>\n

The person with the final word is Mark Horton, director of the state Public Health Department, which oversees the Office of Vital Records.<\/p>\n

“It’s too early for us to give specifics,” said Linette Scott, a deputy director at the department. “We are going to be in compliance with the court order.”<\/p>\n

In Massachusetts, the only other state to legalize gay marriage, “bride” and “groom” were dropped from its marriage certificate in favor of “Party A” and “Party B.” Those individuals then check a box to indicate male or female. In Vermont, which issues certificates of civil union for gays, couples also are identified as “Party A” and “Party B.”<\/p>\n

Simply scratching out “bride” and “groom” on the current California form could be problematic. The form reads: “Make no erasures, whiteouts or other alterations.”<\/p>\n

Tom McClusky, a vice president at the conservative Family Research Council, said the state should maintain two marriage forms, one of which preserves “bride” and “groom.”<\/p>\n

“If the definition is seen to be so fluid, where do you stop?” he asked. “I can imagine the discussion in a couple of years of how many people should be included. Why is it wrong for two men and a woman to get married? I don’t want to see the top of THAT wedding cake.”<\/p>\n

. . . more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Exactly what Dennis Prager predicted will happen is now happening in California. The state is removing “bride” and “groom” from marriage licenses. Why only “2” partners? AP | Michael R. Blood | May. 22, 2008 You have to figure “bride” and “groom” are out. So, what will the California marriage license look like in the … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":497,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"generate_page_header":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[43,8,95,15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2832","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-family","category-gay-marriage","category-homosexual-indoctrination","category-moral-issues"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.orthodoxytoday.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2832","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.orthodoxytoday.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.orthodoxytoday.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.orthodoxytoday.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/497"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.orthodoxytoday.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2832"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.orthodoxytoday.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2832\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.orthodoxytoday.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2832"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.orthodoxytoday.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2832"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.orthodoxytoday.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2832"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}