California’s a hypocrite

Webster defines ‘marriage’ as " the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law" Since California’s own SEC. 31. (a) states "The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.", that leaves " the state of being united to a person in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law."

Unless, apparently, it is the most basic of contracts, that of marriage. Then, we couldn’t help but notice that both of you have/are lacking penises/uteri, so you’re not allowed to be married. A marriage is a state contract and needs to be treated as such. Judges and such perform civil ceremonies and pronounce ‘by the power vested in me by the state’. The contracts are signed, witnessed and notarized. I don’t think that they are even allowed to invoke ‘God’.

Now, how religions choose to handle weddings is a different matter. A wedding is a private party which culminates in the signing of the marriage contract. Think about it;  wedding guests, wedding gifts, wedding reception, all for the marriage ceremony. And marriages are part of the public record while weddings are private functions. IF you didn’t  have your wedding in a religious artifice or with it’s sanction, you may be married but you are not wedded to each other. It’s just semantics but then again, every distinction is, isn’t it. 

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *