Ohnoes! You damned gays!!! shakes fist How DARE you change traditional language on complicated government forms!!! You perverts!
Good grief, people.
There aren’t enough :rolleyes:
(This is too mild-and ridiculous-for the Pit, so I just stuck it here, if that’s all right. Mods, feel free to move it)
And this is the second marriage for both of them. Lovely. Here’s hoping that their exes both have decent enough health coverage to include the children from Rachel’s and Gideon’s previous marriages.
And this is way the government should only be in the business of granting a civil union licenses, with the whole marriage thing the demesne of churches, temples, covens, whatever.
While their reaction is over the top, I can sort of see where they are coming from - Party A and Party B is very impersonal for something that feels so personal to the participants. I just question why there can’t be three versions of the form to cover all the combinations.
Disgusting. The way some people demand special rights just because they’re heterosexual. They’re not even a protected group!
There’s a totally legal way for them to get married and still avoid the bride/groom problem. They just should have married people of the same sex, as the wording on the form clearly intended.
It’s a legal form. It’s impersonal any way they write it up. Save the sentimentality for the ceremony and reception, where I assure you they’ll use the words “bride and groom” rather than “Party A and Party B.”
Besides, how would you distinguish “Bride” from “Bride” and “Groom” from “Groom”? “Bride A, Bride B”? I’m sure you could find some nutjobs who’d complain about that too.
Good. No one’s forcing them to get married anyway. No sweat off my back if those idiots can’t get a tax break because they refuse to sign a silly form.
Maybe Spouse and Spouse would go over better? The Spanish form uses “Contrayente” (derived from the expresion “contraer matrimonio,” and no, I have no idea why we use the same verb for getting married and for catching an illness) for both parties. There’s no “1” and “2”, since there’s no need for it. After all what identifies the people are their names and ID#, and those can’t repeat.
I just don’t get it - maybe I’m misunderstanding how marriage works in the US?
AFAIK, there’s the legal side of marriage and then there’s the rest.
The legal side is paperwork (and some rights).
The rest is optional and whatever you want to make of it. Get a priest and do the religious thing. Get a celebrant and do the secular party thing. Don’t get either and just do the minimum legal thing. I don’t see what the big deal is - if people still want the whole bride and groom big party, they can still have it - with or without religion. How’s the workding on the paperwork make any difference? It’s not like the celebrant / MC / priest announces you as Party A and Party B ‘Smith’.
The quote, "“We just feel that our rights have been violated,” is brilliant. Californians have the right to be called bride and groom on a marriage license, who knew?
Sounds fair enough to me. Heck, there could be dozens of legally sanctioned terms if the government so chose:
“Screaming Girly-girl haidresser Queen” and “Leather-clad Bikerdaddy”
or
“Mimsy, apron-wearing Little Woman” and “Stern Victorian Husband”
I agree the “Party A” and “Party B” bit is very impersonal. I support gay marriage/union, but I can see where this is actually almost bad PR for it, in a way.
Shit, even the personals ads online have “I am a [select] looking for a [select].” Just have: Man/Woman, Man/Man, Woman/Woman". Can’t be that difficult.
I mean, when you testify in court, you don’t say, “I swear to tell the whole truth, so help me God, or else bad stuff will happen, can I get a cuddle?”
Exactly. They’re looking for poetry and validation in a legal document? Personally, I think one or both of them got cold feed and are saving face. ‘Oh honey, I’d love to marry you, I would. I just can’t bear to do it when teh gays have sullied this document.’
