America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 9 years ago by frankj1. 34 replies replies.
Governor Moonbeam Makes the Use of the Words Husband and Wife Illegal in California
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
jackconrad Offline
#1 Posted: Sun, Jul 13 2014, 10:11 PM EST
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461


July 13, 2014 By Jennifer Burke



In the state of California, heterosexual married couples can no longer be referred to as husbands and wives. Democrat Governor Jerry Brown has signed a bill into law that not only redefines marriage, but eliminates any reference to husband and wife, replacing each with the generic term of spouse.

SB 1306 was sponsored by Democrat Mark Leno from San Francisco. Christian News Network reports on the content of said bill.
“Under existing law, a reference to ‘husband’ and ‘wife,’ ‘spouses,’ or ‘married persons,’ or a comparable term, includes persons who are lawfully married to each other and persons who were previously lawfully married to each other, as is appropriate under the circumstances of the particular case,” it reads. “The bill would delete references to ‘husband’ or ‘wife’ in the Family Code and would instead refer to a ‘spouse,’ and would make other related changes.”
Leno sponsored the bill after Proposition 8, in which California voters said no to same-sex marriage, was declared unconstitutional by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court refused to overturn it. State Rep. Leno said of his legislation,”This legislation removes outdated and biased language from state codes and recognizes all married spouses equally, regardless of their gender.”

In response to Governor Brown striking the term husband and wife from all family code, attorney Matthew Reynolds addressed his actions as a ‘raw exercise of power.”
“This bill continues the pattern we’ve been seeing the last few years of politicians ignoring the people to advance the agenda of marriage redefinition,” Matthew McReynolds, attorney with the Pacific Justice Institute in California, told Christian News Network. “What these politicians don’t want people to know is that their actions are illegitimate. Contary to media myths, Prop. 8 has not been invalidated on a statewide basis. Instead, these politicians are exercising raw power, ignoring the Constitution and counting on the people and the courts not to hold them accounta
MACS Offline
#2 Posted: Sun, Jul 13 2014, 10:52 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,791
As soon as I have enough of Kookifornia's $$, I'm taking it and leaving.
ZRX1200 Offline
#3 Posted: Sun, Jul 13 2014, 11:28 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,615
Good plan.
TMCTLT Offline
#4 Posted: Mon, Jul 14 2014, 6:44 AM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
What is it about the f*n commie cooooooks out there? Is it TOO damned much Sun, is there something in the air / water....although I must say it does seem to magnet itself ( cocky behavior ) to mostly the people Calikookians elect!!
victor809 Offline
#5 Posted: Mon, Jul 14 2014, 10:58 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
jackconrad wrote:
July 13, 2014 By Jennifer Burke



In the state of California, heterosexual married couples can no longer be referred to as husbands and wives. Democrat Governor Jerry Brown has signed a bill into law that not only redefines marriage, but eliminates any reference to husband and wife, replacing each with the generic term of spouse.

SB 1306 was sponsored by Democrat Mark Leno from San Francisco. Christian News Network reports on the content of said bill.
“Under existing law, a reference to ‘husband’ and ‘wife,’ ‘spouses,’ or ‘married persons,’ or a comparable term, includes persons who are lawfully married to each other and persons who were previously lawfully married to each other, as is appropriate under the circumstances of the particular case,” it reads. “The bill would delete references to ‘husband’ or ‘wife’ in the Family Code and would instead refer to a ‘spouse,’ and would make other related changes.”
Leno sponsored the bill after Proposition 8, in which California voters said no to same-sex marriage, was declared unconstitutional by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court refused to overturn it. State Rep. Leno said of his legislation,”This legislation removes outdated and biased language from state codes and recognizes all married spouses equally, regardless of their gender.”

In response to Governor Brown striking the term husband and wife from all family code, attorney Matthew Reynolds addressed his actions as a ‘raw exercise of power.”
“This bill continues the pattern we’ve been seeing the last few years of politicians ignoring the people to advance the agenda of marriage redefinition,” Matthew McReynolds, attorney with the Pacific Justice Institute in California, told Christian News Network. “What these politicians don’t want people to know is that their actions are illegitimate. Contary to media myths, Prop. 8 has not been invalidated on a statewide basis. Instead, these politicians are exercising raw power, ignoring the Constitution and counting on the people and the courts not to hold them accounta


HAHAHAHAHA

Come on Jack. This is a retarded article.
Governor Brown "striking the term husband and wife"?!!! OH THE HUMANITY!!!
The state legislature drafted and passed legislation which brought the verbiage in state codes in line with the law. Same sex marriage is legal in California. As such, it is more efficient and accurate if the state codes refer to the individuals in a marriage as "spouses" as husband/wife can be inaccurate and probably could open up legal loopholes.

Nothing was done illegally. There was now "abuse of power". This is a horribly inaccurate article.
tailgater Offline
#6 Posted: Mon, Jul 14 2014, 12:00 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
This is actually pretty funny.
Those vocal against gay marriage claimed that the gay community wanted to change the laws to fit their needs. The gay community feigned shock that such a conclusion could be drawn.
No changes. Just inclusion.
Looks like the so-called "haters" were right.

I'm in favor of gay marriages.
But I get sick and tired of the gay agenda driving new laws that go beyond the scope of their claimed intent.

I don't care that traditional terms are being discarded. I care WHY it's happening.
TMCTLT Offline
#7 Posted: Mon, Jul 14 2014, 12:32 PM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
tailgater wrote:
This is actually pretty funny.
Those vocal against gay marriage claimed that the gay community wanted to change the laws to fit their needs. The gay community feigned shock that such a conclusion could be drawn.
No changes. Just inclusion.
Looks like the so-called "haters" were right.

I'm in favor of gay marriages.
But I get sick and tired of the gay agenda driving new laws that go beyond the scope of their claimed intent.

I don't care that traditional terms are being discarded. I care WHY it's happening.




Tail......it's THE ONLY reason they were after a redefinition of Marriage sorryfog
victor809 Offline
#8 Posted: Mon, Jul 14 2014, 12:39 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
This is actually pretty funny.
Those vocal against gay marriage claimed that the gay community wanted to change the laws to fit their needs. The gay community feigned shock that such a conclusion could be drawn.
No changes. Just inclusion.
Looks like the so-called "haters" were right.

I'm in favor of gay marriages.
But I get sick and tired of the gay agenda driving new laws that go beyond the scope of their claimed intent.

I don't care that traditional terms are being discarded. I care WHY it's happening.



Tail... how does this go beyond the scope of the intent?
Also... I'm not sure you can even blame this law on the gay community. Seriously, this sounds like a basic book-keeping law.

"Hey Frank... you know, now that we've got same sex marriages, our clerks are having trouble identifying who's the wife and who's the husband in some of the court documents, what do you want me to do about it?"

"I dunno Barry... maybe we add 'partner' to that or something?"

"Dude... then we've got 'Husband, Wife, Partner, other partner'.. .our forms are getting out of control"

"Well, what if we just use 'spouse' everywhere?"

"That's a great suggestion Frank! Dude, I bet if you suggested that to the legislators you'd get a cookie!"
victor809 Offline
#9 Posted: Mon, Jul 14 2014, 12:43 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Nevermind. I was wrong.

This is even stupider.

Read the bill. It's simply the paperwork that has to be done after Prop 8 was deemed unconstitutional.

They're saying "Hey, the Prop 8 stuff which made same sex marriage illegal in CA, which was deemed unconstitutional by the courts had a bunch of language in it which we have to change because it's unconstitutional.... here's the new language".

Seriously... when a law on the books is deemed unconstitutional, there's going to be some changes to the law to make sure a state obeys the constitution.
Abrignac Offline
#10 Posted: Mon, Jul 14 2014, 12:52 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
Whether one agrees or disagrees with same sex marriage is irrelevant.

So what is the driving force behind same sex marriage (no pun intended)?

Suppose one is in favor of same sex, for lack of a better word, arrangements though they aren't comfortable calling it a marriage but, would support some sort of new legal arrangement to allow to people perceived equal protection for pension, health benefits, etc. Perhaps that is ok, just don't call it marriage because that isn't watch those of who are in opposite marriages believe and don't want to be lumped into. So give it another name. But, wait for the most part laws on the books use words like husband and wife. So now those laws need to be re-written to either make the terms generic, or a new word needs to be coined and all the aforementioned laws need to reflect the same.

No matter how you look at things a quandary exists.
victor809 Offline
#11 Posted: Mon, Jul 14 2014, 12:57 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Personally, I've always felt marriage itself just needs to be removed from our lawbooks. It would simplify everything if everyone just got a "civil union" and let churches perform their marriages to whatever rules they like. But that never goes over well here.
HockeyDad Offline
#12 Posted: Mon, Jul 14 2014, 1:17 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,135
victor809 wrote:
Personally, I've always felt marriage itself just needs to be removed from our lawbooks. It would simplify everything if everyone just got a "civil union" and let churches perform their marriages to whatever rules they like. But that never goes over well here.



I would fully agree with that. Then we could get on with the next phase of the gay-homo militant extremist agenda of requiring churches to accept gays or lose their tax exempt status.
victor809 Offline
#13 Posted: Mon, Jul 14 2014, 1:27 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
HockeyDad wrote:
I would fully agree with that. Then we could get on with the next phase of the gay-homo militant extremist agenda of requiring churches to accept gays or lose their tax exempt status.


I thought the rightwing nutjobs were accusing the gay militant extremists of trying to abolish churches, not make them accept gays....
tailgater Offline
#14 Posted: Mon, Jul 14 2014, 2:53 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
Tail... how does this go beyond the scope of the intent?
Also... I'm not sure you can even blame this law on the gay community. Seriously, this sounds like a basic book-keeping law.

"Hey Frank... you know, now that we've got same sex marriages, our clerks are having trouble identifying who's the wife and who's the husband in some of the court documents, what do you want me to do about it?"

"I dunno Barry... maybe we add 'partner' to that or something?"

"Dude... then we've got 'Husband, Wife, Partner, other partner'.. .our forms are getting out of control"

"Well, what if we just use 'spouse' everywhere?"

"That's a great suggestion Frank! Dude, I bet if you suggested that to the legislators you'd get a cookie!"



In this world of bureaucratic red tape, I find it hard to believe that CA has time to tidy up their book-keeping on issues that don't involve a protected class.

Don't be so naive as to dismiss this so readily.
tailgater Offline
#15 Posted: Mon, Jul 14 2014, 2:53 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
TMCTLT wrote:
Tail......it's THE ONLY reason they were after a redefinition of Marriage sorryfog


I don't believe that at all.
This is a result, not the goal.
erjaq Offline
#16 Posted: Mon, Jul 14 2014, 3:15 PM EST
Joined: 11-21-2013
Posts: 1,188
victor809 wrote:
Tail... how does this go beyond the scope of the intent?
Also... I'm not sure you can even blame this law on the gay community. Seriously, this sounds like a basic book-keeping law.

"Hey Frank... you know, now that we've got same sex marriages, our clerks are having trouble identifying who's the wife and who's the husband in some of the court documents, what do you want me to do about it?"

"I dunno Barry... maybe we add 'partner' to that or something?"

"Dude... then we've got 'Husband, Wife, Partner, other partner'.. .our forms are getting out of control"

"Well, what if we just use 'spouse' everywhere?"

"That's a great suggestion Frank! Dude, I bet if you suggested that to the legislators you'd get a cookie!"



Why did it have to be Frank and Barry, hmm? Why not Frank and Mary? smh
victor809 Offline
#17 Posted: Mon, Jul 14 2014, 3:51 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
In this world of bureaucratic red tape, I find it hard to believe that CA has time to tidy up their book-keeping on issues that don't involve a protected class.

Don't be so naive as to dismiss this so readily.






I already corrected myself on this.
It was an even dumber article than I'd initially thought.
frankj1 Offline
#18 Posted: Mon, Jul 14 2014, 4:05 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
erjaq wrote:
Why did it have to be Frank and Barry, hmm? Why not Frank and Mary? smh

I was astonished, astonished I say, to see my name linked to this story in any form. I suppose there are worse things than being called a low level bureaucrat in California, but I can't come up with any right now.

Frank...and I'm pissed!
victor809 Offline
#19 Posted: Mon, Jul 14 2014, 4:11 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
frankj1 wrote:
I was astonished, astonished I say, to see my name linked to this story in any form. I suppose there are worse things than being called a low level bureaucrat in California, but I can't come up with any right now.

Frank...and I'm pissed!


It's cool... it was a different Frank... umm.... FrankI, not FrankJ. He likes to eat at McDowells.
victor809 Offline
#20 Posted: Mon, Jul 14 2014, 4:12 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
But you still have to marry a dude named barry. It's totally in the law.
frankj1 Offline
#21 Posted: Mon, Jul 14 2014, 4:17 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
victor809 wrote:
But you still have to marry a dude named barry. It's totally in the law.

would I have to live in Cali? Cuz that's a deal breaker.
teedubbya Offline
#22 Posted: Mon, Jul 14 2014, 6:53 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
I would think a long distance relationship is ok as long as you consummate things some evening in Cali.
DrafterX Offline
#23 Posted: Mon, Jul 14 2014, 7:04 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
wouldn't Pitcher & Catcher be more acurate..?? Huh
ZRX1200 Offline
#24 Posted: Mon, Jul 14 2014, 7:04 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,615
Victor can recommend some hot spots in The Castro.....Mellow
teedubbya Offline
#25 Posted: Mon, Jul 14 2014, 7:07 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Is oral considered consummation? They are consuming and stuff. Or does it need to be full penetration ?
DrafterX Offline
#26 Posted: Mon, Jul 14 2014, 7:26 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
are you worried..?? Huh
ZRX1200 Offline
#27 Posted: Mon, Jul 14 2014, 7:29 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,615
Pretty sure the balls have to touch.
victor809 Offline
#28 Posted: Mon, Jul 14 2014, 7:29 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
ZRX1200 wrote:
Victor can recommend some hot spots in The Castro.....Mellow


Come visit me some time Jamie, I'll take you on a tour.
DrafterX Offline
#29 Posted: Mon, Jul 14 2014, 8:10 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
ZRX1200 wrote:
Pretty sure the balls have to touch.



did you snopes that..?? Huh
ZRX1200 Offline
#30 Posted: Mon, Jul 14 2014, 8:31 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,615
I don't need to.


The Schwartz is stron with me, Yogurt said so.
frankj1 Offline
#31 Posted: Mon, Jul 14 2014, 8:36 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
my wife/spouse is correct, guys do not mature after 8th grade.

It's so much funnier being immature.
MACS Offline
#32 Posted: Mon, Jul 14 2014, 9:35 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,791
The fact remains, Kookifornia is full of fruits and nuts, and what ain't fruits and nuts is flakes... so as soon as I have enough of their money... I'm OUTA HERE!!

When you're speaking to women it's always best to be Frank and Ernest. Frank in Cali and Ernest in NY.
jackconrad Offline
#33 Posted: Tue, Jul 15 2014, 8:55 AM EST
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461
frankj1 wrote:
my wife/spouse is correct, guys do not mature after 8th grade.

It's so much funnier being immature.



8th Grade You kidding??

What are you a College man or something ??
frankj1 Offline
#34 Posted: Tue, Jul 15 2014, 12:00 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
jackconrad wrote:
8th Grade You kidding??

What are you a College man or something ??

sorry Jack. I tend to exaggerate.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Back to Top