LGBT Activists in CA Begin Incrementally Lowering the Age of Consent Under the Radar

[Silhouette]

Below is a sample of the revised family law code that was illegally redacted behind intiative law that states that marraige is "between a man and a woman" without having been revoked by a ballot initiative in California. Which is an outright definition of sedition. Rogue CA officials lined-out the parts in red below. Note the actual textbook description of Proposition 8 was lined out without voters' permission. Subserviant laws that depend on a dominant law that was enacted by a state initiative vote may not be altered to conflict directly with that dominant initiative law. Such an act is an act of sedition against the voters of California: [look for similar acts to follow in your state since California is the testing grounds for the LGBT fascist cult movement]

For further examination of the violation of 7 million voters' power to govern themselves, see this thread: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...future-attempt-another-coup-on-democracy.html

Look up the link in the quote to note that the text in red is lined-out.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 300 of the Family Code is amended to read:
300. (a) Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil
contract between a man and a woman two
persons , to which the consent of the parties capable of making
that contract is necessary. Consent alone does not constitute
marriage. Consent must be followed by the issuance of a license and
solemnization as authorized by this division, except as provided by
Section 425 and Part 4 (commencing with Section 500).
(b) For purposes of this part, the document issued by the county
clerk is a marriage license until it is registered with the county
recorder, at which time the license becomes a marriage certificate.
SEC. 2. Section 301 of the Family Code is amended to read:
301. An Two unmarried male
of the age of persons 18 years of age
or older, and an unmarried female of the age of 18 years or
older, and who are not otherwise disqualified,
are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage.
SEC. 3. Section 302 of the Family Code is amended to read:
302. (a) An unmarried male or female
person under the age of 18 years
18 years of age is capable of consenting to and
consummating marriage upon obtaining a court order granting
permission to the underage person or persons to marry.
(b) The court order and written consent of the parents of each
underage person, or of one of the parents or the guardian of each
underage person shall be filed with the clerk of the court, and a
certified copy of the order shall be presented to the county clerk at
the time the marriage license is issued.
SEC. 4. Section 308 of the Family Code is repealed.
308. (a) A marriage contracted outside this state that would be
valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was
contracted is valid in this state.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a marriage between
two persons of the same sex contracted outside this state that would
be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was
contracted is valid in this state if the marriage was contracted
prior to November 5, 2008.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, two persons of the
same sex who contracted a marriage on or after November 5, 2008,
that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the
marriage was contracted shall have the same rights, protections, and
benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities,
obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from the
California Constitution, the United States Constitution, statutes,
administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common
law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and
imposed upon spouses with the sole exception of the designation of
"marriage." SEC. 5. Section 308 is added to the Family Code, to read:
308. A marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid
by laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is
valid in this state.
SEC. 6. Section 308.5 of the Family Code is repealed.
308.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California. SB 1306 Senate Bill - INTRODUCED

Interesting to note that senator Leno from the gay district of San Francisco has included redaction of age limits to marriage as well. Funny how those redactions weren't publicized at all. Is Leno pre-emptively preparing the voters of California for his next act of fascist dictation? Given the LGBT veneration of its sexual icon Harvey Milk and his penchant for underaged sodomy with the boys he adopted off the streets and simultaneoulsy officiated as father and sodomizer to, this lowering of the age limit in family law without advertisement to the voters is very, VERY insidious.

The article where I got the link to the actual text says "here's the link to the actual text" or some such claiming it was too long to include in the article. Bottom line: it was too explicit to be included. There would be an uproar if people knew that not only their vote on Prop 8 didn't count but now gay senator Leno was after lowering the age of legal consent as well... Lining-out 308.5 above is a DIRECT CIRCUMVENTION OF THE INTIATIVE PROCESS by rogue officials in CA.

Here's the link to the original article: Proposed Bill SB 1306, New Definition for Marriage - Family Legal Ease - Family Law and LGBT Legal Services

A snippet:

New Bill SB 1306, as introduced, Leno. Marriage.

*Due to the lengh nd breadth of the revisions the actual language is not included here but can be found by clicking here.

Yes, because if people read what the actual language is, they'd freak out. Age of consent appear to have met the redactor's pen as well as gender-specific terms... And the patent revision or alteration of Prop 8 without the required initiative by voters to revoke it.

 

[LockeJaw]

Yeah...homosexuality & pedophilia are two different things. Pshhhh

 

[Bush92]

This is what life is like in a blue state. The Soviet Socialist Republic of Kalifornia. Voice of hard working taxpayers is useless in the face of left wing Marxist that run the state.

 

[Silhouette]

There is no expressed or debated reason why the age of consent is lined out in the family law text for the OP. It seems to just "be done". One has to wonder why and in preparation for what?

I'd like to see an interview of CA state senator Mark Leno on the O'Reilly Factor. I want questions put to him and the citizens of the US [California is the testing ground for this neo-cult's fascist rule] WANT ANSWERS. Enough of this shit. This is in no way different from the incremental rise of the 3rd Reicht in Germany in the 1930s.

 

[Silhouette]

Basically I want to know what lining-out gender terms has to do with also lining-out age limits? I want an official statement clarifying that action to the State of California's citizens and to US citizens in the other 49 states who are going to be subject to "California Uber Alles" as we've seen trends go in courts the last 5 years..

 

[LockeJaw]

Do you think we will actually get an answer?

 

[Peach]

Do you think we will actually get an answer?

Similar to Florida law:
(1) If either of the parties shall be under the age of 18 years but at least 16 years of age, the county court judge or clerk of the circuit court shall issue a license for the marriage of such party only if there is first presented and filed with him or her the written consent of the parents or guardian of such minor to such marriage, acknowledged before some officer authorized by law to take acknowledgments and administer oaths. However, the license shall be issued without parental consent when both parents of such minor are deceased at the time of making application or when such minor has been married previously.
(2) The county court judge of any county in the state may, in the exercise of his or her discretion, issue a license to marry to any male or female under the age of 18 years, upon application of both parties sworn under oath that they are the parents of a child.
(3) When the fact of pregnancy is verified by the written statement of a licensed physician, the county court judge of any county in the state may, in his or her discretion, issue a license to marry:
(a) To any male or female under the age of 18 years upon application of both parties sworn under oath that they are the expectant parents of a child; or
(b) To any female under the age of 18 years and male over the age of 18 years upon the female’s application sworn under oath that she is an expectant parent.
(4) No license to marry shall be granted to any person under the age of 16 years, with or without the consent of the parents, except as provided in subsections (2) and (3).
History.—s. 2, ch. 78-266; s. 1058, ch. 97-102.

Those inder 16 can marry under certain conditions. Next?

 

[Silhouette]

Do you think we will actually get an answer?

Similar to Florida law:
(1) If either of the parties shall be under the age of 18 years but at least 16 years of age, the county court judge or clerk of the circuit court shall issue a license for the marriage of such party only if there is first presented and filed with him or her the written consent of the parents or guardian of such minor to such marriage, acknowledged before some officer authorized by law to take acknowledgments and administer oaths. However, the license shall be issued without parental consent when both parents of such minor are deceased at the time of making application or when such minor has been married previously.
(2) The county court judge of any county in the state may, in the exercise of his or her discretion, issue a license to marry to any male or female under the age of 18 years, upon application of both parties sworn under oath that they are the parents of a child.
(3) When the fact of pregnancy is verified by the written statement of a licensed physician, the county court judge of any county in the state may, in his or her discretion, issue a license to marry:
(a) To any male or female under the age of 18 years upon application of both parties sworn under oath that they are the expectant parents of a child; or
(b) To any female under the age of 18 years and male over the age of 18 years upon the female’s application sworn under oath that she is an expectant parent.
(4) No license to marry shall be granted to any person under the age of 16 years, with or without the consent of the parents, except as provided in subsections (2) and (3).
History.—s. 2, ch. 78-266; s. 1058, ch. 97-102.

Those inder 16 can marry under certain conditions. Next?

But Florida and California are different states. When an initiative statute is altered through its subservient code law, it requires the permission in CA of another initiative approved by the voters.

A rogue Official in CA cannot go in and pen out pivotal voter-defined age-limits. This is an attempt to alter the legal age of marriage in California. It is an increment in that direction. It's sedition plain and simple by the definition of CALIFORNIA's legislating system.

 

[bodecea]

Below is a sample of the revised family law code that was illegally redacted behind intiative law that states that marraige is "between a man and a woman" without having been revoked by a ballot initiative in California. Which is an outright definition of sedition. Rogue CA officials lined-out the parts in red below. Note the actual textbook description of Proposition 8 was lined out without voters' permission. Subserviant laws that depend on a dominant law that was enacted by a state initiative vote may not be altered to conflict directly with that dominant initiative law. Such an act is an act of sedition against the voters of California: [look for similar acts to follow in your state since California is the testing grounds for the LGBT fascist cult movement]

For further examination of the violation of 7 million voters' power to govern themselves, see this thread: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...future-attempt-another-coup-on-democracy.html

Look up the link in the quote to note that the text in red is lined-out.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 300 of the Family Code is amended to read:
300. (a) Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil
contract between a man and a woman two
persons , to which the consent of the parties capable of making
that contract is necessary. Consent alone does not constitute
marriage. Consent must be followed by the issuance of a license and
solemnization as authorized by this division, except as provided by
Section 425 and Part 4 (commencing with Section 500).
(b) For purposes of this part, the document issued by the county
clerk is a marriage license until it is registered with the county
recorder, at which time the license becomes a marriage certificate.
SEC. 2. Section 301 of the Family Code is amended to read:
301. An Two unmarried male
of the age of persons 18 years of age
or older, and an unmarried female of the age of 18 years or
older, and who are not otherwise disqualified,
are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage.
SEC. 3. Section 302 of the Family Code is amended to read:
302. (a) An unmarried male or female
person under the age of 18 years
18 years of age is capable of consenting to and
consummating marriage upon obtaining a court order granting
permission to the underage person or persons to marry.
(b) The court order and written consent of the parents of each
underage person, or of one of the parents or the guardian of each
underage person shall be filed with the clerk of the court, and a
certified copy of the order shall be presented to the county clerk at
the time the marriage license is issued.
SEC. 4. Section 308 of the Family Code is repealed.
308. (a) A marriage contracted outside this state that would be
valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was
contracted is valid in this state.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a marriage between
two persons of the same sex contracted outside this state that would
be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was
contracted is valid in this state if the marriage was contracted
prior to November 5, 2008.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, two persons of the
same sex who contracted a marriage on or after November 5, 2008,
that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the
marriage was contracted shall have the same rights, protections, and
benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities,
obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from the
California Constitution, the United States Constitution, statutes,
administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common
law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and
imposed upon spouses with the sole exception of the designation of
"marriage." SEC. 5. Section 308 is added to the Family Code, to read:
308. A marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid
by laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is
valid in this state.
SEC. 6. Section 308.5 of the Family Code is repealed.
308.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California. SB 1306 Senate Bill - INTRODUCED

Interesting to note that senator Leno from the gay district of San Francisco has included redaction of age limits to marriage as well. Funny how those redactions weren't publicized at all. Is Leno pre-emptively preparing the voters of California for his next act of fascist dictation? Given the LGBT veneration of its sexual icon Harvey Milk and his penchant for underaged sodomy with the boys he adopted off the streets and simultaneoulsy officiated as father and sodomizer to, this lowering of the age limit in family law without advertisement to the voters is very, VERY insidious.

The article where I got the link to the actual text says "here's the link to the actual text" or some such claiming it was too long to include in the article. Bottom line: it was too explicit to be included. There would be an uproar if people knew that not only their vote on Prop 8 didn't count but now gay senator Leno was after lowering the age of legal consent as well... Lining-out 308.5 above is a DIRECT CIRCUMVENTION OF THE INTIATIVE PROCESS by rogue officials in CA.

Here's the link to the original article: Proposed Bill SB 1306, New Definition for Marriage - Family Legal Ease - Family Law and LGBT Legal Services

A snippet:

New Bill SB 1306, as introduced, Leno. Marriage.

*Due to the lengh nd breadth of the revisions the actual language is not included here but can be found by clicking here.

Yes, because if people read what the actual language is, they'd freak out. Age of consent appear to have met the redactor's pen as well as gender-specific terms... And the patent revision or alteration of Prop 8 without the required initiative by voters to revoke it.

Nope....should be and hopefully will be no lower than 18.....will make us better than the South.

 

[bodecea]

Yeah...homosexuality & pedophilia are two different things. Pshhhh

Yes they are....because most pedophiles go after girls. And sad to say....their own family or friends.

 

[Silhouette]

Below is a sample of the revised family law code that was illegally redacted behind intiative law that states that marraige is "between a man and a woman" without having been revoked by a ballot initiative in California. Which is an outright definition of sedition. Rogue CA officials lined-out the parts in red below. Note the actual textbook description of Proposition 8 was lined out without voters' permission. Subserviant laws that depend on a dominant law that was enacted by a state initiative vote may not be altered to conflict directly with that dominant initiative law. Such an act is an act of sedition against the voters of California: [look for similar acts to follow in your state since California is the testing grounds for the LGBT fascist cult movement]

For further examination of the violation of 7 million voters' power to govern themselves, see this thread: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...future-attempt-another-coup-on-democracy.html

Look up the link in the quote to note that the text in red is lined-out.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 300 of the Family Code is amended to read:
300. (a) Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil
contract between a man and a woman two
persons , to which the consent of the parties capable of making
that contract is necessary. Consent alone does not constitute
marriage. Consent must be followed by the issuance of a license and
solemnization as authorized by this division, except as provided by
Section 425 and Part 4 (commencing with Section 500).
(b) For purposes of this part, the document issued by the county
clerk is a marriage license until it is registered with the county
recorder, at which time the license becomes a marriage certificate.
SEC. 2. Section 301 of the Family Code is amended to read:
301. An Two unmarried male
of the age of persons 18 years of age
or older, and an unmarried female of the age of 18 years or
older, and who are not otherwise disqualified,
are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage.
SEC. 3. Section 302 of the Family Code is amended to read:
302. (a) An unmarried male or female
person under the age of 18 years
18 years of age is capable of consenting to and
consummating marriage upon obtaining a court order granting
permission to the underage person or persons to marry.
(b) The court order and written consent of the parents of each
underage person, or of one of the parents or the guardian of each
underage person shall be filed with the clerk of the court, and a
certified copy of the order shall be presented to the county clerk at
the time the marriage license is issued.
SEC. 4. Section 308 of the Family Code is repealed.
308. (a) A marriage contracted outside this state that would be
valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was
contracted is valid in this state.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a marriage between
two persons of the same sex contracted outside this state that would
be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was
contracted is valid in this state if the marriage was contracted
prior to November 5, 2008.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, two persons of the
same sex who contracted a marriage on or after November 5, 2008,
that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the
marriage was contracted shall have the same rights, protections, and
benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities,
obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from the
California Constitution, the United States Constitution, statutes,
administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common
law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and
imposed upon spouses with the sole exception of the designation of
"marriage." SEC. 5. Section 308 is added to the Family Code, to read:
308. A marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid
by laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is
valid in this state.
SEC. 6. Section 308.5 of the Family Code is repealed.
308.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California. SB 1306 Senate Bill - INTRODUCED

Interesting to note that senator Leno from the gay district of San Francisco has included redaction of age limits to marriage as well. Funny how those redactions weren't publicized at all. Is Leno pre-emptively preparing the voters of California for his next act of fascist dictation? Given the LGBT veneration of its sexual icon Harvey Milk and his penchant for underaged sodomy with the boys he adopted off the streets and simultaneoulsy officiated as father and sodomizer to, this lowering of the age limit in family law without advertisement to the voters is very, VERY insidious.

The article where I got the link to the actual text says "here's the link to the actual text" or some such claiming it was too long to include in the article. Bottom line: it was too explicit to be included. There would be an uproar if people knew that not only their vote on Prop 8 didn't count but now gay senator Leno was after lowering the age of legal consent as well... Lining-out 308.5 above is a DIRECT CIRCUMVENTION OF THE INTIATIVE PROCESS by rogue officials in CA.

Here's the link to the original article: Proposed Bill SB 1306, New Definition for Marriage - Family Legal Ease - Family Law and LGBT Legal Services

A snippet:

New Bill SB 1306, as introduced, Leno. Marriage.

*Due to the lengh nd breadth of the revisions the actual language is not included here but can be found by clicking here.

Yes, because if people read what the actual language is, they'd freak out. Age of consent appear to have met the redactor's pen as well as gender-specific terms... And the patent revision or alteration of Prop 8 without the required initiative by voters to revoke it.

Nope....should be and hopefully will be no lower than 18.....will make us better than the South.

Should be? It HAS ALREADY BEEN REDACTED JUST THIS PAST WEEK by rogue CA officials to strike the age limit of 18 from the family law code on gender and age to be married. Follow the link in the law I cited to see where there are lines drawn through the text without voters permission. I'm not making this up. Follow the link. Read it!

 

[SteadyMercury]

I must be missing something, where was the attack on the age of consent? Looks like it is just removing the specifics saying marriage is between a male and female.

Before:

301. An unmarried male of the age of or older, and an unmarried female of the age of 18 years or older, and who are not otherwise disqualified, are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage.

302. An unmarried male or female under the age of 18 years is capable of consenting to and consummating marriage upon obtaining a court order granting permission to the underage person or persons to marry.

After:

301. Two unmarried persons 18 years of age or older, who are not otherwise disqualified, are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage.

302. An unmarried person under 18 years of age is capable of consenting to and consummating marriage upon obtaining a court order granting permission to the underage person or persons to marry.

301 still says marriage is 18
302 still says need court order if underage.

Did you mean a different section that is attacking the age of consent?

 

[Silhouette]

I must be missing something, where was the attack on the age of consent? Looks like it is just removing the specifics saying marriage is between a male and female.

Before:

301. An unmarried male of the age of or older, and an unmarried female of the age of 18 years or older, and who are not otherwise disqualified, are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage.

302. An unmarried male or female under the age of 18 years is capable of consenting to and consummating marriage upon obtaining a court order granting permission to the underage person or persons to marry.

After:

301. Two unmarried persons 18 years of age or older, who are not otherwise disqualified, are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage.

302. An unmarried person under 18 years of age is capable of consenting to and consummating marriage upon obtaining a court order granting permission to the underage person or persons to marry.

301 still says marriage is 18, 302 still says need court order if underage. Did you mean a different section?

Nope. Follow the link. The age of 18 and other references to age are lined out. Trying to say they're not are you? When people click the link to discover the text in red in the OP represents lined-out text, they will find out your ruse.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Nope. Follow the link. The age of 18 and other references to age are lined out. Trying to say they're not are you? When people click the link to discover the text in red in the OP represents lined-out text, they will find out your ruse.

I did click the link, that is where I pasted from because the actual lined out parts are easier to read than the red text.

Where am I wrong here? I took the original text in one, and the new text in the other. I might have missed something but from what I can tell all it changed was gender specifics, nothing on age.

If you take out the removed text and add the proposed you get:

301. Two unmarried persons 18 years of age or older, who are not otherwise disqualified, are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage.

302. An unmarried person under 18 years of age is capable of consenting to and consummating marriage upon obtaining a court order granting permission to the underage person or persons to marry.

Which is age-wise is exactly what the law said before, the only difference is not singling out male/female. Instead of accusing me of intentionally misleading I propose you write what your interpretation of the new version of 301 is, and explain where it differs in age of consent.

 

[SteadyMercury]

I think I get it, you didn't understand that there is both removed text and additional text added in to replace it. Here is from the link:

See the part in italics next to the removed text? That is what gets added in. When you put the puzzle together (which you obviously did not do) you get:

Before:

301. An unmarried male of the age of or older, and an unmarried female of the age of 18 years or older, and who are not otherwise disqualified, are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage.

302. An unmarried male or female under the age of 18 years is capable of consenting to and consummating marriage upon obtaining a court order granting permission to the underage person or persons to marry.

After:

301. Two unmarried persons 18 years of age or older, who are not otherwise disqualified, are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage.

302. An unmarried person under 18 years of age is capable of consenting to and consummating marriage upon obtaining a court order granting permission to the underage person or persons to marry.

I see no change in the age of consent here. It says (as before) that if you're under 18 you need a court order to get married.

 

[Silhouette]

Nope. Follow the link. The age of 18 and other references to age are lined out. Trying to say they're not are you? When people click the link to discover the text in red in the OP represents lined-out text, they will find out your ruse.

I did click the link, that is where I pasted from because the actual lined out parts are easier to read than the red text.

Where am I wrong here? I took the original text in one, and the new text in the other. I might have missed something but from what I can tell all it changed was gender specifics, nothing on age.

If you take out the removed text and add the proposed you get:

301. Two unmarried persons 18 years of age or older, who are not otherwise disqualified, are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage.

302. An unmarried person under 18 years of age is capable of consenting to and consummating marriage upon obtaining a court order granting permission to the underage person or persons to marry.

Which is age-wise is exactly what the law said before, the only difference is not singling out male/female. Instead of accusing me of intentionally misleading I propose you write what your interpretation of the new version of 301 is, and explain where it differs in age of consent.

Section 2 & 3 , subsections 301 & 302(a) SB 1306 Senate Bill - INTRODUCED

 

[SteadyMercury]

Yes, I included an image from that very link.

When you put in the proposed additions and remove the struck text you get no change in age of consent. This is one big fail of a thread you have going here.

The final version has the same age of consent as before

301. Two unmarried persons 18 years of age or older, who are not otherwise disqualified, are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage.

302. An unmarried person under 18 years of age is capable of consenting to and consummating marriage upon obtaining a court order granting permission to the underage person or persons to marry.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Look up the link in the quote to note that the text in red is lined-out.

You seem to have highlighted the deletions but forgot to highlight the additions (meaning of course the reading makes no sense.

So let's take a look at the text of the bill with deletions and additions highlighted.

Here is from your post (deletions in RED).

SEC. 2. Section 301 of the Family Code is amended to read:
301. An Two unmarried male
of the age of persons 18 years of age
or older, and an unmarried female of the age of 18 years or
older, and who are not otherwise disqualified,
are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage.

Now let's look at the Text of the Bill -->> SB 1306 Senate Bill - INTRODUCED (In the bill itself additions are in strike-through and additions are in **ITALICS**

Deletions in RED.

Additions in BLUE.

SEC. 2. Section 301 of the Family Code is amended to read:
301. An Two unmarried male
of the age of persons 18 years of age
or older, and an unmarried female of the age of 18 years or
older, and who are not otherwise disqualified,
are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage.

The revision then reads (with changes):
" SEC. 2. Section 301 of the Family Code is amended to read:
301. Two unmarried persons 18 years of age or older, who are not otherwise disqualified,
are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage."


The horror, THE HORROR I TELL YOU. In a State where SSCM is legal that two persons 18 years of age who are otherwise qualified to Civilly Marry can - well - Civilly Marry!!!!!!



**********************************************************


Here is the next one...

SEC. 3. Section 302 of the Family Code is amended to read:
302. (a) An unmarried male or female
person under the age of 18 years
18 years of age is capable of consenting to and
consummating marriage upon obtaining a court order granting
permission to the underage person or persons to marry.

SEC. 3. Section 302 of the Family Code is amended to read:
302. (a) An unmarried male or female
person under the age of 18 years
18 years of age is capable of consenting to and
consummating marriage upon obtaining a court order granting
permission to the underage person or persons to marry.

With the changes the text now reads:
"SEC. 3. Section 302 of the Family Code is amended to read:
302. (a) An unmarried person under 18 years of age is capable of
consenting to and consummating marriage upon obtaining a court order
granting permission to the underage person or persons to marry."


Before this change if an unmarried person was under 18, it required a court order granting them the ability to marry. With the change an unmarried person under 18 is required to get a court order to Civilly Marry.


THOSE DIRTY BASTARDS...



>>>>

 

[LockeJaw]

SteadyMercury still doesn't get the point that they did this illegally...ofcourse it's not fascism as long as it promotes faggotry.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Tell you what, show me what you believe the text of 301 and 302 will say after the proposed changes are made. I'll be glad to either admit I misread the additions/removals or I will point out your misunderstanding.