I’m reading something elsewhere right now that says that the man is generally designated A and the woman B, although a few couples have tossed a coin or played rock-paper-scissors or something to see who gets to be which letter.
I pulled out my marriage license just to see what it said.
ÉPOUX (SE) [ ]M [ ]F | ÉPOUX (SE) [ ]M [ ]F
So basically “Spouse” and “Spouse” in the masculine, with the feminine ending in brackets, which pretty much conforms to the standard way French is written when you have different endings to the same word depending on gender. Then checkboxes for indicating if we are male or female. The whole page is divided vertically, and the person who filled it in put me on the left and my husband on the right.
I’m going to protest the colour, though. We got a green copy. Green is clearly not the colour of love. My rights are being violated!
Somehow, “You may now kiss Party 2” does not sound as romantic.
Party on, Wayne.
What, “pitcher” and “catcher” wasn’t clear enough?
Sheesh.
The party of the foist part…
Anyway, whether this oh-so-pious couple ever gets legally married or not, here’s hoping they never have children.
I was just pondering that too. I can’t think of a good gender-neutral English term for bride/groom? Spouse-to-be?
People do get attractive marriage certificates that are not government documents. I was an MOH last year and all I signed was a “certificate” from the officiant that was obviously for display only. Perhaps all this couple needs to do is find a good calligrapher.
Oh sure, steal my joke.
sigh
Always the Party Bsmaid, never the Party B.
Read the article more closely-they have children from a previous marriage-as I said in my OP, hopefully said children are covered by their exes’ insurance. I know if this was MY ex husband, I’d be filing for sole (soul?) custody.
Honestly, I don’t get this one. When I hear people talking about their weddings, I never hear them mention how wonderful it was that the government forms addressed them in a certain way. Generally it’s about the ceremony, or how great it was to have family or friends there, and the like. It may be because I have no partner, let alone someone i’d want to marry, but as long as it isn’t “Mistake Maker 1 and 2”, I can’t see myself caring what term they’d use on the license.
Married, had kids, divorced AND remarried by 25? Oy.
I think that of all the things that are a problem with this marriage, the wording on their marriage certificate falls pretty low on the totem pole.
Hopefully the government won’t have approved group marriages by the time these two nitwits move on to Marriage #3. 
i have a vague bell ringing about social services, ie medicare, social security, other federal things that can change due to a marriage over a partnership.
That makes sense, since the feds wouldn’t recognize a DP.
No kidding. I didn’t even remember anything to do with the marriage license other than having to apply for one within the appropriate time period and then having to get copies to deal with the name change. It’s definitely not something that ranked as even vaguely romantic and I really doubt these two see anything about it other than their horror that the government is letting gay people get hitched.
I agree with Apollyon’s (and probably other posters, if I missed it in my read-through) comments - the government’s end of things should be issuing licenses for a civil union, and that should be the only thing that matters for civil/legal/rights-related issues. Take that piece of paper and go to a judge or church or pagan priest or whatever you want to do the actual “marriage” part.
No kidding. The people whose panties are twisted about this have way too much free time and are way too pampered. Maybe what this country needs is a few rogue death squads for a few months so people can learn what a shitty life is really like.
Yeah, but I opened the link, and Party A is kind of hot (or is that Party B?). And I guess she’s single too. Rawr!
Oh, for…(checks forum) fruit’s sake! Do they complain that their 1040 tax form doesn’t specify the joint filer’s names by gender? If you want tradition, the place to seek out fulfillment is not a goddamn government form. Look to your church or your parents or whoever the hell, but you know what? It’s not the government’s damn job!
I like the part that they hold this as evidence that same-sex unions have an impact on heterosexual couples. Because obviously, a minor change in wording on a (theoretically) one-time government document you need to sign has a massive impact on your life. :rolleyes: Good riddance.
From the article:
Traditionalists, except they both don’t have problems with divorce, or are we just talking about traditionalist since divorce laws were relaxed? Ah, the good old days when divorce was forbidden.
OK, so it’s the religious nut [del]bride’s[/del] Would-be Party A or B’s father behind this. Let’s blatantly discriminate against a whole group of people just to make sure that religious nuts don’t freak out if the words “bride” and “groom” don’t appear on their licenses. Are we set for tissy fit that their inevitable divorce decree also doesn’t include “husband” and “wife” and are these self-righteous twerps going to call the media then?
No, it’s not just frivolous, it’s fucking stupid to worry about two words on a legal document, especially in face of the inability to keep marriages intact.
Good god. How does this debunk it? Do these nuts think we’re as stupid as them?
Yes, we can be imprisoned without charges, and spied upon without warrant, but THIS is BEYOND THE PALE! Up until now I’ve been willing to trust my elected officials to do what’s best, but changing the words on the marriage form… well, it’s time to clean house.
I don’t know if it does any more, but the RC church used to provide its own “marriage certificates.” Razorette and I have one, which we framed and hung in our bedroom for many, many years (the state’s “license” is in our safe deposit box).
Look, folks, the state’s marriage license is nothing more than a civil contract between two parties. It’s like clicking “I Agree” when you’re installing software – it means nothing unless you violate it. If the nuptiants (if that’s not a word, it should be) want something more gender-specific and “special” they can fire up Microsoft Publisher and make one themselves – it’ll have all the power and enforcability of their vows. But make sure it’s a licensed version of Publisher.
They still do, if I’m not mistaken.