# Couple refuse to sign marriage license over "gender neutral" terms **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [September 17, 2008, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-refuse-to-sign-marriage-license-over-gender-neutral-terms/463941 "2008-09-17T02:37:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2008, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-refuse-to-sign-marriage-license-over-gender-neutral-terms/463941/1 "2008-09-17T02:37:20Z")
[**Couple fight gender-neutral language in wedding license**](http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1239279.html) > [@](#): > > Last month, Rachel Bird exchanged vows with Gideon Codding in a church wedding in front of family and friends. As far as Bird is concerned, she is a bride. > > To the state of California, however, she is either “Party A” or “Party B.” > > Those are the terms that have replaced “bride” and “groom” on the state’s new gender-neutral marriage licenses. And to Bird and Codding, that is unacceptable. > > “We are traditionalists – we just want to be called bride and groom,” said Bird, 25, who works part time for her father’s church. “Those words have been used for generations and now they just changed them.” Ohnoes! You damned gays!!! _shakes fist_ How DARE you change traditional language on complicated government forms!!! You perverts! Good grief, people. > [@](#): > > And Rachel Bird described her position as “personal – not religious.” > > “We just feel that our rights have been violated,” she said 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. ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2008, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-refuse-to-sign-marriage-license-over-gender-neutral-terms/463941/2 "2008-09-17T03:16:07Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Cazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cazzle/32/75_2.png) [@Cazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cazzle)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2008, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-refuse-to-sign-marriage-license-over-gender-neutral-terms/463941/3 "2008-09-17T03:31:24Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2008, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-refuse-to-sign-marriage-license-over-gender-neutral-terms/463941/4 "2008-09-17T03:38:22Z")
> [@Cazzle](#): > > 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. People are already in a lather over Spanish language government forms. Now you want special forms for Christians? Or is it nutcases? ---
**Author:** ![Jenaroph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Jenaroph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jenaroph)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2008, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-refuse-to-sign-marriage-license-over-gender-neutral-terms/463941/5 "2008-09-17T03:41:18Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Jenaroph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Jenaroph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jenaroph)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2008, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-refuse-to-sign-marriage-license-over-gender-neutral-terms/463941/6 "2008-09-17T03:46:55Z")
> [@Cazzle](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![DiosaBellissima](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a8b319/32.png) [@DiosaBellissima](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiosaBellissima)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2008, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-refuse-to-sign-marriage-license-over-gender-neutral-terms/463941/7 "2008-09-17T03:51:28Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Sunspace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunspace/32/1250_2.png) [@Sunspace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunspace)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2008, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-refuse-to-sign-marriage-license-over-gender-neutral-terms/463941/8 "2008-09-17T05:23:16Z")
The answer is simple. Change the form to read ‘Applicant’ and ‘Joint Applicant’ like it does in Ontario. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Manduck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manduck/32/256_2.png) [@Manduck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Manduck)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2008, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-refuse-to-sign-marriage-license-over-gender-neutral-terms/463941/9 "2008-09-17T05:29:54Z")
I wouldn’t care as long as it was clear to everybody the _I_ am Party A:dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Punintentional](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9de0a6/32.png) [@Punintentional](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Punintentional)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2008, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-refuse-to-sign-marriage-license-over-gender-neutral-terms/463941/10 "2008-09-17T05:37:54Z")
Will it be “Bride & Groom” or “Groom & Bride”? ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2008, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-refuse-to-sign-marriage-license-over-gender-neutral-terms/463941/11 "2008-09-17T10:38:01Z")
> [@Cazzle](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Essured](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/278dde/32.png) [@Essured](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Essured)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2008, 10:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-refuse-to-sign-marriage-license-over-gender-neutral-terms/463941/12 "2008-09-17T10:40:05Z")
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’. ---
**Author:** ![Kal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9de053/32.png) [@Kal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kal)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2008, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-refuse-to-sign-marriage-license-over-gender-neutral-terms/463941/13 "2008-09-17T10:57:49Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_Clock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Shot\_Clock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_Clock)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2008, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-refuse-to-sign-marriage-license-over-gender-neutral-terms/463941/14 "2008-09-17T13:03:54Z")
[updated Elton John song]“I wanna Kiss the Party A”[/updated Elton John song] ---
**Author:** ![TheLoadedDog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/35a633/32.png) [@TheLoadedDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheLoadedDog)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2008, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-refuse-to-sign-marriage-license-over-gender-neutral-terms/463941/15 "2008-09-17T13:39:58Z")
> [@Cazzle](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![TheLoadedDog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/35a633/32.png) [@TheLoadedDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheLoadedDog)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2008, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-refuse-to-sign-marriage-license-over-gender-neutral-terms/463941/16 "2008-09-17T13:51:20Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > 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. “Marriage _contract_” and _contract_ a disease… Same in English. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2008, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-refuse-to-sign-marriage-license-over-gender-neutral-terms/463941/17 "2008-09-17T15:00:39Z")
It’s a legal document. Of course it’s impersonal. 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?” ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Fight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/90ced4/32.png) [@Cat\_Fight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Fight)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2008, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-refuse-to-sign-marriage-license-over-gender-neutral-terms/463941/18 "2008-09-17T15:06:34Z")
> [@Jenaroph](#): > > 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.” 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.’ ---
**Author:** ![GaryM](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garym/32/241_2.png) [@GaryM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GaryM)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2008, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-refuse-to-sign-marriage-license-over-gender-neutral-terms/463941/19 "2008-09-17T15:11:35Z")
> [@TheLoadedDog](#): > > 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 kind of like “Baby Momma” and “Baby Daddy” myself. ---
**Author:** ![lawoot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/35a633/32.png) [@lawoot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawoot)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2008, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-refuse-to-sign-marriage-license-over-gender-neutral-terms/463941/20 "2008-09-17T15:21:34Z")
> [@Shot\_Clock](#): > > [updated Elton John song]“I wanna Kiss the Party A”[/updated Elton John song] “I Knew Party B When s/he Used to Rock and Roll” [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-refuse-to-sign-marriage-license-over-gender-neutral-terms/463941.md?page=2)