Image 01 Image 03

California Democrat Introduces Bill to Erase the Words ‘Husband’ and ‘Wife’ From Federal Law

California Democrat Introduces Bill to Erase the Words ‘Husband’ and ‘Wife’ From Federal Law

“Amend the Code for Marriage Equality Act”

A House Democrat from California named Julia Brownley has introduced a bill that would erase the words ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ from federal law, replacing them with the gender-neutral term ‘spouse.’

The college campus-ification of America continues apace.

FOX News reports:

‘Husband,’ ‘wife’ scrubbed from federal law under House Democrat bill, replaced with ‘spouse’

New legislation proposed in the House would remove the words “husband” and “wife” from federal law and replace them with a range of terms such as “spouse.”

The “Amend the Code for Marriage Equality Act,” introduced by California Democrat Julia Brownley, seeks to amend a number of existing laws by striking the terms “husband” and “wife” from their text. The proposed legislation moves to substitute the words with phrases such as “a married couple,” “married person” and “person who has been, but is no longer, married to’’ depending on the context.

“Although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex couples have the right to marry, there are many instances where the U.S. Code does not respect that constitutional right,” Brownley said in a statement released on Friday.

“Now more than ever, with an extreme Supreme Court and state legislatures rolling back the rights of the LGBTQ community, it is imperative that Congress showcases its commitment to supporting equality,” she continued. “This common-sense bill will ensure that our federal code reflects the equality of all marriages by recognizing and acting upon the notion that the words in our laws have meaning and our values as a country are reflected in our laws.”

“Common-sense bill.”

Note how she uses this as a cudgel to bash the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Washington Times has more:

The bill would also replace references to “husband and wife” with “married couple.” A “former husband” or “former wife” would become a “person who has been, but is no longer, married.”

This isn’t the bill’s first rodeo. Ms. Brownley introduced the legislation in 2021, 2019 and 2017, carrying the torch for now-retired Rep. Lois Capps, California Democrat, who brought the bill in 2015.

The 2021 bill had 39 cosponsors, all Democrats.

The legislation, which has little chance of passing the Republican-controlled House, comes with the Biden administration moving to supplant sex-based terms such as “mothers” with “birthing people” in an apparent nod to biological women who identify as men.

This might be little more than virtue signaling, but that’s only as long as Republicans hold the House. Does anyone doubt that this would pass if Democrats controlled both chambers?

Featured image via YouTube.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Gays have husband and wife too.

That this topic is foremost in the mind of a politician shows us how intellectually dissipated the left have become. Labels don’t mean anything, until they do.

    AF_Chief_Master_Sgt in reply to Tiki. | July 18, 2023 at 9:42 pm

    What did you expect from a fat bull dyke when it comes to the terms “husband” and “wife?”

    From her looks, she is as as unfamiliar with either term as she would be able to explain what a woman really is.

Operation Orwell is well underway. Silly laws for less than serious world.

Toss a few millenia down the drain to push Cultural Marxism

E Howard Hunt | July 18, 2023 at 6:16 pm

Will those who assist persons of birth in delivery be known as midspouses?

Circling the drain….

SeymourButz | July 18, 2023 at 7:35 pm

Elton John looking ass lady

Suburban Farm Guy | July 18, 2023 at 9:41 pm

I wonder if she even knows she’s a big dumb beast being controlled and driven by a tiny imp of Satan.

Probably not. Too dumb. The philosophy she serves calls her a useful idiot. Spot on — from that perspective

Little Miss Julia is not, nor has he ever been, a woman or a girl.

Okay, federal law should not have anything to do with marriage anyway.

    CommoChief in reply to geronl. | July 19, 2023 at 10:41 am

    Disagree. We should tie all federal income and housing assistance programs to not only fully employed, 2000 hour per year workers, but also to marriage for support for children with the exception of:
    1. Widow/Widower
    2. Divorced citing/proving Physical abuse w a police report at minimum (preferably with enough evidence for a conviction to have been sustained)

    Marriage, at least what we think of as ‘marriage’ permanent family formation, is a societal good. If the State is gonna subsidize actions then lets at least try and limit the subsidies to actions which are beneficial to society. Personally, I think all ‘welfare’ aka unearned benefits should be replaced with voluntary charity.

      henrybowman in reply to CommoChief. | July 19, 2023 at 1:52 pm

      Given that there should not be any such unconstitutional abomination as “federal income and housing assistance programs,” you’re both right.

        CommoChief in reply to henrybowman. | July 19, 2023 at 4:20 pm

        I’m with you on that point, but if we are going to have them b/c the leftists and the suburban squishy GoP Karen(s) insist upon having them then lets at least create positive incentives and refuse to reward bad choices.

Steven Brizel | July 19, 2023 at 9:03 am

This is more proof of the hostility of Democrats to the traditional family of dad mom and children

Where we began is gays just want to “marry” the one they love. To bake the damn cake backwards-thinking Christian baker. To transing the gay away. To bake the damn gender-reveal cake you bigoted, hateful Christian. To hiding puberty blockers the school spoon feed into minor children from parents. To mutilations of innocent children. To men ruining the dreams of women by unfairly competing against them in women’s sports. To removing husband and wife from federal documents.

Tell me again there is no slippery slope. Go ahead. I’ll wait.

Due to congressional redistricting out here in Calif after the 2020 census, this woman (yes, I think she really is that) now serves an area to the south of where I live. So I can’t vote against her any more. She’s been in Congress for several terms, but never associated with any significant legislation, so she apparently feels compelled to generate a frivolous bill like this.

To think that we actually have genuine problems to solve in this country, and this silly make-work issue commands time in the Congress of “our democracy”. Somewhat like fiddling while Rome burns…….

Virtue signaling? No. What they’re doing is best described in Orwell’s 1984:

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

William Downey | July 19, 2023 at 11:10 am

Another example of left-wing lunacy. The Democratic Party has become, among other weirdness, the party of the absurd.