Click to go mobile
Search articles from thousands of Examiners
Los Angeles News Top News Examiner
 
Find out more about Rick:

With an insider’s eye and outsider’s edge, Rick Pearcey spots the headlines and subtexts that matter. A published writer and book editor, Rick has worked in journalism on Capitol Hill and edits The Pearcey Report from the Washington, D.C., area. Please send news tips, comments, and photos to Rick at pearceyexaminer@gmail.com.


 
Subscribe to Rick's Email Alerts

Get alerts when Rick submits a new article
Email Address


  Include other special offers from Examiner.com
Terms of Use

Rick has been added to your favorite examiners
·
Next Article

"Bride" and "Groom" Not Tolerated by Calif. Bureaucrats

September 8, 4:59 PM
Comment
RSS

"Those seeking to wed as 'bride' and 'groom' in California will now have to marry outside the state," asserts the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) in a press release dated Sept. 8, 2008. "Pastor Doug Bird found that out after he officiated his first wedding ceremony since the decision by the California Supreme Court overturning Proposition 22."

"Last week the marriage license that he filed with Placer County was sent back along with a notice of rejection," says PJI.

"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'," Pastor Bird states. 

According to PJI, "The applicants, 'Gideon and Rachel,' wrote the words 'groom' and 'bride' next to 'Party A' and 'Party B' because they wished to have their legal union officially recognized as a covenant between a husband and wife. The County Recorder's Office stated that the State Office of Vital Records deemed the hand written words 'bride and groom' to be an 'unacceptable alternation'."  

In an open letter cited by PJI, Pastor Bird asks, "What's next? Will the State of California force . . . [ministers] to use the terms 'Party A' and 'Party B' in the ceremony itself?"

"The change on legal documents is the result of a ruling by the state's high court that found that defining marriage as exclusively between a man and woman violated the California Constitution," says PJI. "The 4-3 decision threw out a state statute passed by the voters." 

 The entire PJI press release is here.

Author: Rick Pearcey
Rick Pearcey is a National Examiner. You can see Rick's articles on Rick's Home Page.
Find out more about Rick:
With an insider’s eye and outsider’s edge, Rick Pearcey spots the headlines and subtexts that matter. A published writer and book editor, Rick has worked in journalism on Capitol Hill and edits The Pearcey Report from the Washington, D.C., area. Please send news tips, comments, and photos to Rick at pearceyexaminer@gmail.com.
Subscribe to Rick's Email Alerts
Get alerts when Rick submits a new article
Email Address


  Include other special offers from Examiner.com
Terms of Use

Rick has been added to your favorite examiners
More About: Homosexuality · Marriage

Add a Comment

Name:
Comments:
characters left

Write for us

Now Recruiting in Los Angeles
We are now looking for Los Angeles writers to cover hundreds of topics, including: View all available topics »