Can ex-wives choose - like “the Bastard” and “the Hussy?”
Maybe the wedding guests can vote - you can get “Irresponsible” and “Stupid” or “Unfaithful” and “Blind” “Rich One” and “Golddigger.” And occationally “Madly in Love” and “Madly in Love, too.”
Paaar-TAY A and Paaaaar-TAY B.
Reminds me a bit of that overused gag when filling out forms in the 70s:
MARITAL STATUS: Swingle
In Ontario, folks who don’t want to have to use the gub’mints “Applicant/Joint Applicant” marriage license can get married without one by having banns published at their places or worship and mentioned in the wedding service. Atheists would be SOL if they want to use bride/groom rather than applicant/joint applicant.
In Ontario the wedding service (religious or not) must include the affirmation of each taking the other as their lawful wedded husband/wife, or partner, or spouse, so there again folks with a traditional preference are not forced into gender neutral language.
Since there is a lot of legislation and there are a lot of forms floating about that deal with family law in Ontario, I wouldn’t be surprised if there are still a few examples of non-gender neutral language. For example, the form used to request a marraige certificate still uses bride/groom. I expect that over time these remnants will be amended.
Since there are no standard forms for domestic contracts (cohabitation agreements, marriage contracts, and separation agreements) in Ontario, the parties are free to use whatever terminology they prefer.
And what about us who don’t want to have kids? Huh?? Huh?? What about our rights??!!!ONE!!
Help, help, I’m being oppressed!
Sugar Mama/Daddy?
What do you want to bet it’s a publicity stunt for the anti-gay marriage crowd?
(Oh, is anyone else getting the ads for removing cat pee odors?)
I think I’m gonna start a thread in CS for gender neutral love songs.
Party A - Band name!
I could see the same-sex couples arguing over who gets to be Party A. Party A seems somehow superior to Party B.
What a stupid world it is sometimes.
If they could fill out a more personal form, then they could cook hot meals for each other.
Change it to Party A and Party 1.
Do they still have the option of entering into a Civil Union? If so, what’s the wording on that?
'cause, that’d be funny…
We don’t have civil unions, we have domestic partnerships. Domestic Partnerships in CA are limited to same-sex couples or opposite sex couples where at least one of the parties is age 62 or over.
Damn, I was hoping they would have “spouse” and “spouse” on the forms. It seems more romantic to me than “party A” and “party B.” (why I think the government’s form should be romantic, I haven’t a clue) But I guess you’re not actually a spouse till you’re married, not while you are in the act of marrying.
“Honeybunny Left” and “Honeybunny Right.”
Dr. Seuss had it right: “Thing One and Thing Two”
Genuinely curious, what’s the logic behind this? Why the age limit? And how exactly is a het “marriage” different from a het “domestic partnership”?
I think it’s despicable how the conservatives in charge completely disregard Party C.
There ain’t no Sanity Clause!
Yeah! We’ll have to change it to Party A, Party 1, and Party I. 
Domestic Partnership was designed as our ‘alternative’ for gay couples. Why they included the bit about senior het’s I don’t know.
I’m sure there are legal reasons why they can’t have give the two parties the exact same title, though I’m equally sure Spouse 1 and Spouse 2 would work. But then, someone would complain about being the 2nd spouse, and therefor of secondary importance.