For today's soap box...
I was reading the Honolulu Star Bulletin today and an article caught my eye, "Bride and groom not neutral on gender-neutral terms" To break it down, a California couple (male/female) refused to sign a state marriage license because the state replaced the terms bride and groom with Party A and Party B. Now, they are filing a lawsuit. The groom states "our personal objective is to be honored and recognized by the state of California as bride and groom" and "these gender neutral terms violate the rights of the majority." Though they are married in the eyes of God (church ceremony) they are not married in the eyes of the state and therefore the bride cannot change her name or receive her husband's medical benefits. The president of the Sacramento Stonewall Democrats calls this lawsuit "frivolous." REALLY? Why wasn't it frivolous when the law was changed to make the certificate gender neutral? Last time I checked a marriage union was between a man and a woman. If same sex couples want to receive the same benefits as married couples then they need to petition to change tax codes and medical benefits to include terms like "life partner" or whatever the PC term is today or petition the state to change it from a "marriage license" to a ball & chain license or whatever suits the fancy. Our country has gotten so focused on the "marriage" aspect of it all, but really what it comes down to is money and rights. I have no problem with same sex unions and each partner getting tax/medical benefits, etc and all of the other legal junk, but a marriage is between man and woman, period, end of soapbox.
No comments:
Post a Comment