Monday, 14 July 2014 16:15

California Measure Deletes “Husband," “Wife” From State Marriage Law

Written by 

California Governor Jerry Brown has signed into law a measure deleting the terms “husband” and “wife” from California's marriage law. SB 1306 was introduced by openly homosexual State Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's June 2013 ruling that the state's 2008 voter-approved constitutional amendment, Proposition 8, defining marriage as only between a man and a woman is unconstitutional.

The new measure strikes from the state's family code the references to marriage as a union “between a man and a woman” and replaces the terms “husband” and “wife” with the term “spouse” throughout state ordinances.

With the Supreme Court ruling, California “resumed issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples — and recognizing same-sex marriages from out of state — in June 2013,” reported the Los Angeles Times, but references to traditional marriage had remained on the books until Leno and Brown tag-teamed to make husbands and wives legally passe.

“This legislation removes outdated and biased language from state codes and recognizes all married spouses equally, regardless of their gender,” said Leno in a statement. He thanked Brown for recognizing “the importance of this bill, which makes it explicitly clear in state law that every loving couple has the right to marry in California.”

The Times noted that the bill was cosponsored by California Attorney General Kamala Harris, while predictable opposition came from such conservative, pro-family groups as the California Family Council and Concerned Women for America of California.

Matthew McReynolds of the Pacific Justice Institute said in a statement that the new law “continues the pattern we’ve been seeing the last few years of politicians ignoring the people to advance the agenda of marriage redefinition. What these politicians don’t want people to know is that their actions are illegitimate. Contrary 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 accountable.”

Similarly, the National Organization for Marriage argued that the law represents “further proof that redefining marriage is not simply about 'equality' or expanding the institution to include more kinds of relationships; it is about fundamentally altering the meaning of the institution itself, and discarding terms like 'husband' and 'wife' to the ash heap of history.”


  • Comment Link Ted Makogon Thursday, 17 July 2014 09:27 posted by Ted Makogon

    Inevitable consequence of universal voting rights. Since majority of people are by nature ignorant and poorly educated, universal voting rights lead to gradual degradation of laws, views, policies. Ask yourself a question: if the US Consitution had been created not by the Founding Fathers, but by universal opinion or vote, what would it look like?

    Since the universal voting was adopted (largely because of the revolutionists movements of the 1st half of the 20th century), the Western civilization has been gradually destroyed. This process will continue until it finally collapses and is replaced by more stable formation (which does not have universal voting rights).

    As for California Marriage law, at least for now it just says "spouse". Wait until the judges order to replace every occurence with "spouse or common-law partner", as in some other jurisdictions, making it totally unreadable.

  • Comment Link Frank M. Pelteson Tuesday, 15 July 2014 16:03 posted by Frank M. Pelteson

    Always lurking in the background is the ever-present United Nations' Women Gender Mainstreaming, See .According to its first paragraph:

    "Gender mainstreaming is a globally accepted approach to achieving gender equality and constitutes an essential part of UN Women’s work. It makes women’s as well as men’s concerns and experiences integral to the design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of all policies and programmes, as defined by the Economic and Social Council in its Agreed Conclusions 1997/2. A comprehensive approach, it pertains to all activities in peace, development and human rights, and ensures that women and men can influence, participate in and benefit from these."

    The only "benefit" is the veiled, communistic destruction of the institution of marriage.

    We need to Get US out! of the United Nations. See .

  • Comment Link Tionico Tuesday, 15 July 2014 13:08 posted by Tionico

    Mr. Weiland, you are exactly right on this one. The longer we, the church, insist on submitting to Caesar, the longer this debacle will continue. The last wedding I attended presented a marked change from any other I've ever attended: the couple (yes, one MAN and one WOMAN, now having cut covenant with each other before God and we witnesses, turned and faced the rest of us. The minister declared : by the authority vested in me by the Church, I now pronounce you MAN and WIFE. I immediately noted, and rejoiced in, his utter neglect to add "and the State of ___________". He was acting SOLELY as an official of the Church, and NOT of the state. This is the way it should have been for generations. Leave the state out of it, it is none of their concern.

    Now, as regards things like estates, succession, parenthood, etc, all one need do is to draft and file a will/trust declaring the property of the couple to be community property, held in joint tenancy, and that their issue will be the legal heirs thereto upon the demise of both. A family trust can hold legal title, manage all the wealth, debt, etc, and provide an easy path for later distribution on the demise of the couple. Who needs the stinking state? Render to Caesar what IS Caesar's, not whatever Caesar imagines to be his. And to God what IS God's.... which is everything. It is HE, not Caesar, who "made them in His own image, male and female created He them, and for THIS cause a MAN shall leave his Father and Mother, and a WOMAN leave her home, and the two shall become ONE FLESH. That is God's doing, none of the state's. Keep it that way.

  • Comment Link Nora Tuesday, 15 July 2014 02:21 posted by Nora

    This is just disgusting. Marriage licenses? Dog licenses? Driver's licenses? Building permits? Certificates of Occupancy? Fishing licenses? Business licenses? Are we going to continue to put up with their ridiculous licensing baloney? We are truly deluded to think we live in a free country. We are just pathetic losers if we let them dictate what marriage is and between whom it can be. Resist this usurpation of our individual rights to travel freely, live as we choose and pursue happiness. Stop submitting and stand up!

  • Comment Link Ted R. Weiland Monday, 14 July 2014 18:15 posted by Ted R. Weiland

    This is what comes from the church turning jurisdiction of the God-ordained sacrament of matrimony (and nearly everything else) over to secular government. Whoever provides the license, makes the rules.

    Tragically, what in the 1600s was known as Christendom (Christians dominionizing on behalf of Christ) has become merely four-walled, stain-glassed Christianity, what Christ, in Matthew 5:13, depicted as salt that's lost its savor, good for nothing but to be trampled under the foot of man.

    For how to turn Christianity back into Christendom, see free online book "Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant" at

  • Comment Link Chuck Anziulewicz Monday, 14 July 2014 16:12 posted by Chuck Anziulewicz

    Since when has ANY couple, Gay or Straight, needed a marriage license application to give them permission to refer to one another as "husbands," "wives," or "husband and wife"? The people who are raising such a huge stink about this make it sound as though all the various terms of endearment for our loved one will be suddenly declared illegal. Get a grip.

Please Log In To Comment
Log in