Pharyngula

Ridiculous sanctimony

The state of California now issues gender-neutral marriage licenses: they simply register the legal relationship of “Party A” and “Party B”, where the relevant individuals fill out their actual names. That sounds reasonable and straightforward to me — it’s a state-mandated contract.

Wouldn’t you know it, though, there has to be someone offended by it.

In an utterly absurd whine, Rachel Bird and Gideon Codding are stamping their selfish, privileged little feet and bleating that they are soooo upset about this.

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.”

Bird and Codding have refused to complete the new forms, a stand that has already cost them. Because their marriage is not registered with the state, Bird cannot sign up for Codding’s medical benefits or legally take his name. They are now exploring their options, she said.

That is insane. They are voluntarily rejecting benefits that they apparently think are pretty important because they don’t like the impersonal legalese on a state form? Get over it. What are their real reasons? Here’s one: religious wackaloonery.

Bird’s father, Doug Bird, pastor of Roseville’s Abundant Life Fellowship, said he is urging couples not to sign the new marriage forms, and that he is getting some support from congregants and colleagues at local churches.

“I would encourage you to refuse to sign marriage licenses with ‘Party A’ and ‘Party B,’ ” he wrote in a letter that he sent to them. “If ever there was a time for the people of the United States to stand up and let their voices be heard – this is that time.”

Here’s another:

“Those who support (same-sex marriage) say it has no impact on heterosexuals,” said Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute. “This debunks that argument.”

Now that’s reaching. The wingnuts have long been claiming that allowing gays to marry somehow hurts their heterosexual marriages, a claim that is patently silly and false, and now they’ve got two idiots who will voluntarily slap themselves with a penalty so they can claim genuine damages. This is not credible.

They want to be called a bride and groom. OK, they’re a bride and groom. They had a church wedding in which no doubt they were addressed as bride and groom. Now it’s time for them to grow up and stop being petulant children.

By the way, they’ve also been married before and have five kids between them already. I think they can quit playing the nomenclature games — they aren’t in your traditional conservative version of marriage anyway, and they’re simply setting a bad example for their children. But then, they probably want to raise another generation of spoiled monsters with an easily offended sense of privilege.

Comments

  1. #1 GK4
    September 16, 2008

    Since their names are Bird and Codding, maybe they would prefer to be called “Party B” and “Party C”?
    ;)

  2. #2 Roy
    September 16, 2008

    Fundies? In California? Who let them across the border?

  3. #3 ChrisC
    September 16, 2008

    “If ever there was a time for the people of the United States to stand up and let their voices be heard – this is that time.”

    And not during the period when the government was waging a war based on a lie. Not at the time that the government was handing over control of the economy to a bunch of large corporations. And certainly not during the period that a bunch of religious wacka-loons were attempted to pass off a fairy-tale as “science” and have it taught to children.

    I’ve maintained for a while now that the main problem with the US at this time is that a huge number of people have their priorities so far out-of-whack that they’re barely on the planet anymore. Methinks they protest too-much?

  4. #4 Alan Chapman
    September 16, 2008

    It’s important for some people to have their relationships state-approved. Just get the government out of the marriage business altogether.

  5. #5 Paul Brown
    September 16, 2008

    I have to say that I have always thought that marriage certificates should be like this; marriage is a legal partnership in the same way that a business partership is, so the gender, sexual orientation and, indeed, number of parties involved is not for the law to dictate. If four women and three men want to marry each other then that is their business and no-one else’s. The traditional arguments of parental responsibility are pointless anyway since all partners share equal responsibility (like they would in a business relationship) and if the partnership is dissolved then the same rules apply as current divorces. Yes, it might be a little more complicated, but I’m sure that we will all manage to cope somehow.

  6. #6 Raynfala
    September 16, 2008

    Love Conquers All*

    * except for a distate for gender-neutral marriage licenses…

  7. #7 Ichthyic
    September 16, 2008

    Fundies? In California? Who let them across the border?

    you have to remember than CA is like 3 states in one:

    rethuglican Southern CA (excluding LA proper)

    Progressive/democrat Northern CA

    …and rural demented fuckwitville Eastern CA.

    You’ll get a good picture of all the players if you check out that recent court case filed by xian secondary schools against the University of California for not accepting their creationist “science” courses for college credit.

    there was a thread on Pharyngula about it not long back

  8. #8 Kel
    September 16, 2008

    That’s pure insanity. What does it matter what label a secular government uses on a legal form when you get that exact same legal recognition as before? Secular government, secular institution, secular recognition; nothing wrong at all. A secular government has to be accomodating to everyone…

  9. #9 N.B.
    September 16, 2008

    @Alan Chapman #4:

    Um, that’s not really possible, seeing as how the whole reason people generally want legally-recognized marriage is because they want in on the numerous state and federally-granted privileges associated with being legally married.

    Or are you suggesting that there should be no legal advantages to marriage?

  10. #10 Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT
    September 16, 2008

    It’s important for some people to have their relationships state-approved. Just get the government out of the marriage business altogether.

    I like my wife on my health insurance and her ability to make medical decisions should they arise, as well as other more emotionally tying things about being married.

    We aren’t religious so the state marriage may only be a piece of paper, but it carries a lot of weight. Symbolic and economic.

  11. #11 Raynfala
    September 16, 2008

    errr distaste…

    *shuffles feet in embarrassment*

  12. #12 Ichthyic
    September 16, 2008

    A secular government has to be accomodating to everyone…

    well, therein lies the problem for xian bigots, right?

    it’s why they don’t want a secular govt.

    er, not to belabor your point, or anything.

    :p

  13. #13 CalGeorge
    September 16, 2008

    Hey, no fair!

    Equal rights for “Party C”!

  14. #14 Nasikabatrachus
    September 16, 2008

    Posted by: Kel | September 16, 2008 11:11 PM
    “That’s pure insanity. What does it matter what label a secular government uses on a legal form when you get that exact same legal recognition as before? ”

    Wait a second. You mean the US wasn’t founded by Jesus?

  15. #15 Cuttlefish, OM
    September 16, 2008

    The bonds of holy matrimony
    Must be seen as wholly phony
    If, instead of “Bride and Groom” (or else, of “Man and Wife”),
    It’s “Party A and Party B”
    (That’s plainly not the same, you see!
    That’s no way to address the one who’s going to share your life!)
    If “Party B and Party A”
    Is what the license now will say
    The parties are both equal, which is not what God would say!
    This new form is a disaster
    If it doesn’t name me “Master”,
    And it doesn’t state specifically, the missus must obey!

  16. #16 Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT
    September 16, 2008

    Wait a second. You mean the US wasn’t founded by Jesus?

    Yes just after he visited here and showed the Israelites around.

    *too much

  17. #17 Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT
    September 16, 2008

    Once again , cuttlefish displays that he is 100% win at the molecular level.

  18. #18 Kel
    September 16, 2008

    Wait a second. You mean the US wasn’t founded by Jesus?

    I’d say no, but the mormons say yes. And in post-modern philosophy any strongly held viewpoints are equivalent, so I don’t know what to believe.

  19. #19 aratina
    September 16, 2008

    Does anyone really think that gays and lesbians will look at the words ‘Party A’ and ‘Party B’ with pride? We are taking a hit, too. I’d much rather it said ‘Bride’ and ‘Bride” or ‘Groom’ and ‘Groom’; that would really put Bird and Codding into a tizzy.

  20. #20 I am so wise
    September 16, 2008

    So, they’re living in sin. I believe that is a stoneable offense. As I am without this particular sin, I guess I get to throw the first stone. Then you all follow.

  21. #21 Nerd of Redhead
    September 16, 2008

    Rev. BDC, I have to agree that cuttlefish has outdone himself today.

  22. #22 Daddy Stegosaurus
    September 16, 2008

    I’ve never understood why there are so many fundies in California. I’m in Arkansas. I expect them here. They feed on poverty like ticks on a dog, but in California?

  23. #23 Eamon Knight
    September 16, 2008

    I have no recollection of exactly what it said on the papers my wife and I signed 28 years ago. In fact, I’d have to look hard in my filing system just to find our copy of the document. I bet most couples (except maybe lawyers, or the pathologically well-organized)

    So why the hell would anyone care about the wording?
    Oh yeah: as an excuse to throw a hissy-fit and claim persecution.

    Those Christians in India being terrorized by hardline Hindus — that’s persecution, and the victims have all my sympathy. These silly whiners? Grow up, you cry-babies.

  24. #24 SteveWH
    September 16, 2008

    I suppose it’s too much to hope that as they suffer through the difficulties of not being legally married, they come to a new appreciation (hell, SOME, ANY appreciation) of what it is like to have those difficulties forced upon you.

    I suppose it’s too much to hope that they might learn something like humility, decency, kindness, tolerance, compassion, sympathy, or a sense of shared human dignity.

    Of course it’s too much to hope for. It’s all too easy to overlook a basic sense of morality when you’re too busy being a pampered, courted, pandered-to majority with a self-centered martyr complex.

  25. #25 Derik N
    September 16, 2008

    idiots

  26. #26 chrislrob
    September 16, 2008

    Ridiculous.

    They might as well say they are impacted because gays getting married makes the line at the courthouse longer.

  27. #27 HappyKiwi
    September 16, 2008

    Check out one of the most recent comments on the article claiming the non-groom has a history of violence. Lesson: before you go publicly fishing for attention, make sure your closet is clean of skeletons.

  28. #28 Roy
    September 16, 2008

    @#7- I live in San Francisco, so I am very aware of the fucktards that inhabit this great state. I am willing to bet that these two fundies live in Central Valley, or somewhere equally Republican. And thank the FSM that those xtian complaints about UCB weren’t taken seriously.

  29. #29 The Chemist
    September 16, 2008

    Well I bet you wouldn’t ask for Muslims to get marriage licenses!

    Am I doing this right? I think it needs a tyo. There we go.

  30. #30 anthropicOne
    September 16, 2008

    I’ve never understood why there are so many fundies in California. I’m in Arkansas. I expect them here. They feed on poverty like ticks on a dog, but in California?

    I’m in the SF bay area. And yes, there are not only fundies but new age foo foo spiritual crazies. Frankly, it makes the fundies look rather rational by comparison.

  31. #31 cicely
    September 16, 2008

    Applause for Cuttlefish @ 15.

    Awesomeness.

  32. #32 DangerAardvark
    September 16, 2008

    Marriage should consist of a priest (or sea captain) of your choice waving his hands over you, saying some magic words then anointing you with goat’s blood. Poof, you’re married. You want legal benefits? Incorporate.

  33. #33 Kel
    September 16, 2008

    Well I bet you wouldn’t ask for Muslims to get marriage licenses!

    Am I doing this right? I think it needs a tyo. There we go.

    Doesn’t sound quite right. Maybe it’s more along the lines of “You wouldn’t try and destroy the institute of marriage if this were a Muslim state”.

    Still doesn’t seem right tbh

  34. #34 The Dark Avenger
    September 16, 2008

    They feed on poverty like ticks on a dog, but in California?

    The Eastern California alluded to up thread is where you’ll find lower income, higher teen pregnancy rate than anywhere in the country(Tulare-Visalia area), and more churches.

    I should know, I live there.

  35. #35 Ichthyic
    September 16, 2008

    I should know, I live there.

    ouch.

  36. #36 Erik D Johnson
    September 16, 2008

    As a 25-year-old gay atheist Eagle Scout, living with my boyfriend of 5 years, I can think of a few indignities I’d be happy to trade with them if the worst I had to deal with was to be called Party B on a government document.

  37. #37 tsg
    September 16, 2008

    “Those who support (same-sex marriage) say it has no impact on heterosexuals,” said Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute. “This debunks that argument.”

    No, it impacts those who think they have a divine right to inflict their intolerance on others. And it should. I only wish it would make it harder for them to breed.

    “We are traditionalists” means “we’re intolerant assholes because our parents are.”

  38. #38 tony
    September 16, 2008

    I’m sure this is obvious to all the readers here, but it’s pretty clear that the only constitutional right in question here is that CA must treat everyone equally under it’s marriage law, which is exactly what it has done by designating the Parties to the marriage. It’s not required to create an institution of marriage, but if it does so the institution must be an equal one. Anyway, I fail to see why CA didn’t just opt for a form permitting self-identification. Beside each field for a party’s name could be a set of boxes to identify that party’s title: Bride, Groom, Party [A/B], or what have you. That lets people be Brides if they like Bride, or Grooms if they prefer that.

  39. #39 Ron Sullivan
    September 16, 2008

    Icthyic: …you have to remember than CA is like 3 states in one:

    Omnia California in tres partes divisa est. Speaking only of majorities, of course–there are lots of outliers (and outright liars) in any part–your description’s fairly fair.

    Daddy Stegosaurus in #22: I’ve never understood why there are so many fundies in California. I’m in Arkansas. I expect them here. They feed on poverty like ticks on a dog, but in California?

    Lots of poor people here too. Also, remember all those Okies and Arkies? (And Texies.) Some of them brought their religion with them, and some of them have festered that state of mind over several generations. IME, though, it’s the non-poor who get the nastiest, especially in the recent climate of aggressive ignorance.

  40. #40 Mike from Ottawa
    September 16, 2008

    That taking yourself hostage schtick worked better when it was Cleavon Little doing it in Blazing Saddles. A great scene.

  41. #41 Clemens
    September 16, 2008

    No no, you must reverse the fatwha envy, like

    “You wouldn’t complain if a Muslim had designed those forms”.

  42. #42 cactusren
    September 16, 2008

    More xians claiming persecution when there is absolutely no persecution in sight. A marriage certificate is a legal document, not a religious one. They can still refer to themselves as “bride” and “groom” in whatever religious ceremony they have. They need to get over themselves, sign the form, and stop whining.

  43. #43 inkadu
    September 16, 2008

    I’m offended anyone has to get married to get decent health insurance.

    Shit, if I had decent health insurance from my employer, I’d probably marry my occasionally sickly girlfriend just to get her some coverage.

    Lets see the fundies get behind universal coverage with the same fervor.

  44. #44 Ichthyic
    September 16, 2008

    “You wouldn’t complain if a Muslim had designed those forms”.

    no, no, it’s:

    “You wouldn’t attack Muslims who complained about the form!”

  45. #45 Mashenka
    September 16, 2008

    I was surprised by the California fundies when I first moved here, too. Coming from the Midwest, I was thinking that by leaving the literal Bible Belt, I’d be leaving behind the crazies.

    Obviously not.

  46. #46 inkadu
    September 16, 2008

    I wonder how long it is before some fundie court clerk starts invalidating marriage licenses because a woman signed as Party A and a man signed as Party B. Doesn’t the man have to come first in the state constitution?

  47. #47 cureholder
    September 16, 2008

    Rachel says she and Gideon “feel like a bride and groom,” but they can’t be married because they don’t meet some ridiculous and pointless bureaucratic requirement the state has imposed despite its stupidity.

    This must be something like what gay couples have always felt like in California, until now. Except, of course, that Rachel and Gideon’s ineligibility is both stupid and self-selected, and the state’s position here isn’t a moral abomination.

    Get over it, kids. Rachel, you’ll never have the approval of your sanctimonious and idiotic father who has always put his invisible friend ahead of you, and this is a really stupid way of seeking that approval. You have kids to take care of, and that’s more important than [PZ said it best] “acting like petulant children and stamping your selfish, privileged little feet.”

    And by the way, Gideon, if you don’t want to be Party B to Rachel’s Party A, I would be glad to invite her over to my place for a little (temporary) “Party C.’

  48. #48 tsg
    September 16, 2008

    You want legal benefits? Incorporate.

    Marriage carries legal benefits that incorporation doesn’t.

  49. #49 cactusren
    September 16, 2008

    Oh, and props to Cuttlefish!

  50. #50 peacefully evyl
    September 16, 2008

    You’re kidding, right? They’re pissed because they’re called party and party b on a legal form? Frankly, I hope more of them refuse to sign the form and and thus give up state benefits. I still don’t understand why marriage provides so many financial benefits. What, exactly, is it about marriage that deserves the monetary benefits? Is it the sex? The monogamy? The children? The cohabitation? I wonder if we could balance the budget, or properly fund education if we removed all the tax breaks for married folks.

  51. #51 tsg
    September 17, 2008

    More xians claiming persecution when there is absolutely no persecution in sight.

    No. You see, not being allowed to persecute others is persecution to them. How are they supposed to practice their Christian love if they can’t hate others?

  52. #52 Ichthyic
    September 17, 2008

    IME, though, it’s the non-poor who get the nastiest, especially in the recent climate of aggressive ignorance.

    speaking of which, the necon thugs in this state have a long history of putting up sacrificial lambs like the ones under discussion here, simply in order to whip the fundies into a voting frenzy.

    recall that there is a constitutional amendment proposed to bar gay marriage on the November ballot, and really, all THAT is is a hot-button issue used to motivate the fundies to get out and vote.

    It’s all so fucking transparent, it’s tedious.

    …and it works damn near every time in this State; the neocons have used fundie hot-button issues as motivators for decades.

    In the end, this is nothing to do with gay marriage in CA (though of course it will have an inevitable impact that the rethuglicans couldn’t really give a shit about), it’s everything to do with who controls the state legislature, the governorship, and the presidency.

    I do believe that this strategy, notably recalling how Arnie’s big initiative package went down in flames not that long ago, is finally starting to wear out its welcome.

    Not soon enough for my tastes though.

  53. #53 MissPrism
    September 17, 2008

    ‘Ksake. How insecure do you have to be to have the State reassure you about your sexuality on every bit of paper?
    Maybe California should have a separate form for whiny idiots, with one space labelled HETEROSEXUAL GROOM WHO IS NOT GAY and one labelled HIS BRIDE WHO IS OF THE OPPOSITE SEX BECAUSE HE IS NOT GAY.

  54. #54 Kel
    September 17, 2008

    . I still don’t understand why marriage provides so many financial benefits.

    In Australia, any couple that has lived together for over 12 months gets pretty much the same legal rights as a married couple. It’s pretty cool as you don’t have to get married to get the benefits.

  55. #55 Nentuaby
    September 17, 2008

    Aratina:

    Yes, actually, I do find the A/B nomenclature actively preferable to having “gay” forms with groom/groom. More generally, I prefer to scrub that type of thing of role preconceptions rather than issue different versions for different roles.

    Obviously neither of us can speak for every queer- I can’t guess which view would be more popular.

  56. #56 Alan Chapman
    September 17, 2008

    #9 Yes, I’m suggesting that there should be no legal advantages to marriage. Why should there be? I really don’t give a damn about all the government goodies people want.

    #10 You’re right that state marriage is only a piece of paper. Marriage is an agreement between adults. Meddling politicians and uninterested third-parties have no business interfering. Your marriage would be no different without a government-granted license than it is now. There would simply be one less piece of paper in a government filing cabinet and we would not have this petty political bickering over how the state should define marriage.

    Without a state-approved marriage, your wife could still be on your health insurance and still make her own medical decisions. She could do these things because that what consumers would demand.

  57. #57 BobC
    September 17, 2008

    Rachel Bird and Gideon Codding are probably glad they don’t live in Massachusetts.

    BOSTON–Justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled 5-2 Monday in favor of full, equal, and mandatory gay marriages for all citizens. The order nullifies all pre-existing heterosexual marriages and lays the groundwork for the 2.4 million compulsory same-sex marriages that will take place in the state by May 15.

  58. #58 Paula Helm Murray
    September 17, 2008

    You bet, tsg/ I live in an established household of three adults who celebrated a commitment ceremony among all our friends at Conquest two years ago. We have a lawyer friend who drew up papers and told us how we needed to do to make sure we are okay if someone unexpectedly dies.

  59. #59 Ichthyic
    September 17, 2008

    Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled 5-2 Monday in favor of full, equal, and mandatory gay marriages for all citizens.

    Jeeeeefffffffff!
    ;)

  60. #60 normalityrelief
    September 17, 2008

    I have to say I completely agree with ChrisC (#3). When I read that line (“If ever there was a time for the people of the United States to stand up and let their voices be heard – this is that time.”), it immediately jumped out at me as a stunning indication that the priorities of many in this country are amazingly out of order.

    During a time in our history when the states of our financial, legal, cultural, and civil rights affairs are in such an incredible state of flux, people truly believe that this is the issue on which we need to be acting? That honestly saddens me a great deal…

  61. #61 BMS
    September 17, 2008

    Proud “Party A” here. Married “Party B” in early August. After almost 16 years together it was nice to be able to finally do so.
    .
    .
    .
    The idiots in the story can go Cheney themselves.
    .
    .
    .

  62. #62 Zar
    September 17, 2008

    If marriage in its current form doesn’t work for them, why don’t they just get a civil union? After all, it’s just as good, apparently.

  63. #63 Greta Christina
    September 17, 2008

    aratina (#19):

    Does anyone really think that gays and lesbians will look at the words ‘Party A’ and ‘Party B’ with pride?

    I do.

    When Ingrid and I got married in June, there were a lot of opposite- sex couples getting married at City Hall on the same day… all filling out the same “Spouse A” and “Spouse B” forms that we were. And I thought: This is amazing. This is exactly what we’ve been fighting for. Marriage is no longer about A Man and A Woman; maleness and femaleness; the man’s role in the family and the woman’s role; the husband and the wife. It’s about a certain kind of relationship between two people. That is a huge and important historical change, and I am proud to be part of it.

    As for the charming couple in this story: Az PZ points out, they can call themselves whatever the hell they want to. They can have a church wedding with an officiant who’ll call them any damn thing they please. And if they really can’t stomach the thought of filling out a piece of government paper that calls them Spouse A and Spouse B, they can go get married in another state.

    Which is more freedom than Ingrid and I have. Not only could we not have gotten married in most states; most states won’t even recognize the marriage that we have. The “totally legal in the state where we live” marriage.

    They need to stop whining, and stat.

  64. #64 CanadaGoose
    September 17, 2008

    >>In Australia, any couple that has lived together for over 12 months gets pretty much the same legal rights as a married couple.<<

    Canada too.

    And, of course, we have same sex marriage and the sky hasn’t fallen yet.

  65. #65 Colin
    September 17, 2008

    @32: “…Poof, you’re married…”

    But that’s what they’re objecting to in the first place!

  66. #66 scooter
    September 17, 2008

    Would the Bee please kiss her A.

  67. #67 crossbuck
    September 17, 2008

    Why am I not surprised this is taking place in Roseville? That area (along with Rocklin and Loomis) are the bastion of religious zealotry in the Valley. They’re the types who wouldn’t live in a city like Sacramento because “those people” live here in Sacramento, though they’re quite happy to commute to work here, just so they can get the hell out of Dodge before nightfall. I get the last laugh, as their property values are going into the toilet faster than mine. Maybe they didn’t pray hard enough to raise their property values.

  68. #68 amplexus
    September 17, 2008

    We live in an extremely strange time where pure madness passes for civil discourse. This is a great example of this. If this doesn’t get mostly fixed following this election then we don’t deserve to be saved

  69. #69 BMS
    September 17, 2008

    Greta Christina-

    Congratulations to you and Ingrid on your recent nuptials!!!

  70. #70 wrpd
    September 17, 2008

    When are you liberals going to learn? Today it’s Party A and Party B. Tomorrow it’s going to be Party A, Party B, Party C, Party D, and so on.
    /sarcasm

  71. #71 5ive
    September 17, 2008

    @#28
    Hmm. not central Ca. more like right next to the capitol. Yeah, I live in Roseville. It is a wasteland of Christianity here with wee pockets of normalcy. But it is one of those places where you are often asked which church you go to. Not the funnest place to be atheistic.
    Made me wince to see where I live as the place of this… :(
    Don’t forget we still have Prop. 8 on our ballots trying to make this a democratic case, not a civil rights one. Booo….

  72. #72 Ichthyic
    September 17, 2008

    Tomorrow it’s going to be Party A, Party B, Party C, Party D, and so on.

    dogs and cats, living in sin!

    the horror!

    :p

  73. #73 Kyle S
    September 17, 2008

    Those who support (same-sex marriage) say it has no impact on heterosexuals,” said Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute. “This debunks that argument.”

    Can you say “self-fulfilling prophecy”.

  74. #74 biogeek
    September 17, 2008

    I live in a demented fuckwit part of California, recently on the local paper’s website someone posted about how their daughter “couldn’t be a mother” because on the birth certificate form it now asks for names of parents, not “mother” and “father”. We’ve also been all through the stupid discussion about marriage licenses not “letting” people be wives or husbands, because it now says “partner” or “spouse”. Both of these discussions went on for days, and I was called a lot of nasty names. I was usually, with very rare exception, the only one explaining in detail just how fucking stupid the whole topic was.

    There are times when I have to remind myself that somewhere out there are cities with thinking people in higher concentration than where I currently live. I so miss living where I could throw a rock and hit people who are not demented fuckwits.

  75. #75 Kel
    September 17, 2008

    Those who support (same-sex marriage) say it has no impact on heterosexuals,” said Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute. “This debunks that argument.”

    “They changed a label on a form. Persecition! Persecution!!! Help, save me Jesus”

  76. #76 Jay
    September 17, 2008

    How can anyone act so ridiculously? What’s wrong with these people?

  77. #77 Rey Fox
    September 17, 2008

    Abundant Life Fellowship…sounds like a real bastion of rationality there.

    “They are now exploring their options, she said.”

    Hopefully those options are: Sit ‘n’ spin, Take a flying fuck at a rolling donut, A kick in the pants, A long walk off a short pier, etc.

    “When Ingrid and I got married in June, there were a lot of opposite- sex couples getting married at City Hall on the same day… all filling out the same “Spouse A” and “Spouse B” forms that we were.”

    Did you fight over who got to be the big A?

  78. #78 Donovan
    September 17, 2008

    If they really want a traditional marriage, shouldn’t it be a business contract between families? How many goats were exchanged in this traditional marriage, anyhow? And if she already has kids, then she isn’t a virgin which makes the traditional mrraige void and we must now, by tradition, stone her to death. What? Oh. They mean what THEY define as tradional marriage.

  79. #79 Former PZ Student
    September 17, 2008

    I think CA should get rid of Party A and Party B and change it to Party _____ and Party _____. That way you could fill in the blank with a myriad of fun things.

  80. #80 paul
    September 17, 2008

    I’d love to see this “reverend” look me in the eye and tell me that because the state is recognizing my right to become the family of the person I love, it’s taking away the right of his little monster to carry the title of bride on her certificate. I’d promptly bitch-slap him.

  81. #81 Brian X
    September 17, 2008

    wrpd, Ichthyic:

    You’re both missing the true import. Not only will it be Party A, Party B, Party C, but Party d(Party C’s little sister), Party e (the youngest member of Party A’s second grade class where s/he teaches), Party Zeta (Party B’s pet ferret), and party Shin (a lightpost in front of City Hall).

  82. #82 Scott
    September 17, 2008

    Damn, they say liberals are whiny and irrational?!

  83. #83 Ichthyic
    September 17, 2008

    Party _____ and Party _____.

    hmm

    party NOW and Party ALL NIGHT LONG.

    ?

  84. #84 Andy
    September 17, 2008

    “We don’t like this idea. That means it’s affecting us adversely already.”

    Does this argument remind anyone of kids playing cops and robbers, and yelling over whether or not the imaginary bullet hit the other kid?

  85. #85 Ichthyic
    September 17, 2008

    Shin (a lightpost in front of City Hall).

    damn! Is she available?

    excuse me…

  86. #86 usagi
    September 17, 2008

    #56: #10 You’re right that state marriage is only a piece of paper. Marriage is an agreement between adults.

    That is simply incorrect. Marriage, in this use, is a legal contract that confers a specific standing within the law to the participants.

    Without a state-approved marriage, your wife could still be on your health insurance and still make her own medical decisions. She could do these things because that what consumers would demand.

    Pure, unmitigated bullshit. No matter how long you’ve been “married” without that “piece of paper” when your spouse lands in the hospital in a coma, any other blood relation, no matter how distant or estranged, has the legal standing to walk in and make all decisions concerning future her care.

    You may wish that this was not the case, but in the real world, this is what it is. Perhaps it shouldn’t be that way, but until such time, I’ll take the protections marriage offers, thanks.

  87. #87 Former PZ Student
    September 17, 2008

    “Party _____ and Party _____.

    hmm

    party NOW and Party ALL NIGHT LONG.”

    Then CA would have to change the word Party to Par-tay!…that was the geekiest thing I’ve said in a while…..going to bed now.

  88. #88 pcarini
    September 17, 2008

    Erik D Johnson @ #36

    As a 25-year-old gay atheist Eagle Scout, living with my boyfriend of 5 years, I can think of a few indignities I’d be happy to trade with them if the worst I had to deal with was to be called Party B on a government document.

    C’mon, kiddo, don’t sell yourself short. You could even be Party A! I take it you got that Eagle Scout before they found out you were gay?

  89. #89 Mariana
    September 17, 2008

    @ 54 and 64:

    Brazil is the same. I was “married” for 15 years without ever getting legally married. It certainly made getting divorced much easier. ;)

    Unfortunately, same-sex marriages haven’t been legalized yet, though some progress has been made, and there’s been a lot of noise, so I think it’s only a matter of time.

  90. #90 FlameDuck
    September 17, 2008

    “If ever there was a time for the people of the United States to stand up and let their voices be heard – this is that time.”

    Hello? September 11th 2001? Can we at least agree that a terrorist attack costing more than 4000 human lives, is at least slightly more worrying than a non-gender specific marriage form? It’s amazing how the religious fuckwits readily use 9/11 as an excuse to undermine civil liberties with one hand, and with the other diminish its impact when faced with great threats to society like homosexual couples wanting the same form of legal protection married couples get for free.

    They are voluntarily rejecting benefits that they apparently think are pretty important because they don’t like the impersonal legalese on a state form?

    Yes. So basically they’re voluntarily being gay. I would like to think that this experience would somehow cause a “good Christian” to have sympathy for what homosexual couples in many places simply can’t have. Ever.

  91. #91 SC
    September 17, 2008

    Party ALL THE TIME, of course.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5LX16zia2k

  92. #92 JB
    September 17, 2008

    I have cousins in Roseville. It’s by Sacramento and it’s as bad as you’d think. Everyone has the same house and goes to the same giant churches and ll the kids look the same.

    I went to a wedding and the bride (Party A) had her dad as the officiant. They did this creepy promise ring thing where he talked about he gave it to her when she was young and how she kept herself pure. She took off. Gave it to the dad. The dad gave it to Party B. That’s some creepy symbolism.

    I love my daughter dearly but the passing around of her virginity is not really something I want to be a part of.

  93. #93 wrpd
    September 17, 2008

    I just hope the multi-party forms have a space large enough for a large paw print.

  94. #94 ndt
    September 17, 2008

    Because their marriage is not registered with the state, Bird cannot sign up for Codding’s medical benefits or legally take his name.

    You know, I’m pretty sure that’s not true.

  95. #95 ndt
    September 17, 2008

    ^I meant the part about changing her name isn’t true.

  96. #96 Michael X
    September 17, 2008

    Having lived in every “section” of CA, I always scoff at this stereotype that CA is a full of Liberals and Hippies. Nutters are everywhere. From Vacaville and Fairfield and Placerville where my family resides now, to shithole central CA towns like Santa Maria to beautiful “liberal” towns like Santa Barbara.

    Too many of my friends won’t even vote because they think CA will always go Blue. And yet I only see a rise in articles like this one coming out of CA. Only apathy and ignorance are to blame in their relatively uncontested rise. There is a very strong movement to overturn the recent ruling that legalized gay marriage and I don’t think most Californian’s even get that there is a very motivated group of people out there that don’t fit the stereotype, so they don’t get up and do something about it. Most of them even forget that we have a republican governor. Hollywood or not.

    Makes you want to slap someone. Possibly an apathetic CA voter?

  97. #97 JHS
    September 17, 2008

    White, land-owning male suffrage was also “an institution” and a “tradition.” So….can I sue the state and demand they do away with the gender and race boxes on voter registration and change the top line to Full WHITE MALE Name? After all, *I* feel slighted and could never bring myself to register to vote using a document that represents the corruption of one of our most venerable institutions. Those who support universal suffrage say it has no impact on white guys, but this debunks that argument (“this” being my precious little feelings, now shattered).

    Morons.

  98. #98 shonny
    September 17, 2008

    Maybe there should be provisions for fools like these two to be registered as what they really are: Refer to them as Sillyprick and Dumbcunt on the form (or maybe Birdbrain and Codswallop?).
    That way they may not whinge too much anymore about the neutral form.
    And someone tell them to get a life!

  99. #99 llewelly
    September 17, 2008

    Reading the comments above – I guess I don’t need to remind people that California elected Reagan governor twice. And then California helped elect Reagan president twice!

  100. #100 shonny
    September 17, 2008

    Maybe a little show of appreciation for the cretinous father, pastor Doug Bird (bird dog?)- dbird@alfchurch.org would be appropriate?

    Mind you, nothing nasty, just mild mannered mocking to let him know that the issue is SO-O-O-O important.
    After all, he’s fair game – a godbot!

  101. #101 WhenDanSaysJump
    September 17, 2008

    “Party ABOMINATION and Party BLASPHEMOUS.” /fundie

  102. #102 Pimientita
    September 17, 2008

    @usagi

    Pure, unmitigated bullshit. No matter how long you’ve been “married” without that “piece of paper” when your spouse lands in the hospital in a coma, any other blood relation, no matter how distant or estranged, has the legal standing to walk in and make all decisions concerning future her care.

    You may wish that this was not the case, but in the real world, this is what it is. Perhaps it shouldn’t be that way, but until such time, I’ll take the protections marriage offers, thanks.

    I think that Alan Chapman was speaking hypothetically. He was offering a vision of what could be used in place of only marriage conferring these benefits on one’s partner(s) in order to argue for the state getting out of the marriage business.

  103. #103 Johnny
    September 17, 2008

    I don’t know mean to rock the boat, but I think these people have a point.

    I live in a house but when I fill out a government form and it asks me for “apartment number” I feel discriminated against. What are they trying to say about my lifestyle choices? We’ve lived in houses for generations, but now they’ve gone and changed the word.

    I haven’t been this outraged since I was a kid in school filling out the top of standardized tests.

    Name: Johnny
    Age: 9
    Sex: No

    That last question always bugged me.

  104. #104 alloy
    September 17, 2008

    Certain irony.

    They’re whinging about benefits they’re missing out on because of a few words on paper.

    Aren’t these the self same benefits they would deny gay couples?

  105. #105 Raiko
    September 17, 2008

    What a biiig deal, oh no.

    Call them bride and groom, for all I care. And let us call ourselves bride and bride. I would say the Party A, Party B thing was originally done to NOT step on homophobic feet, so they can’t claim abuse of the terms “bride” and “groom” for those dirty homosexuals. But no matter what you do, given that they’re homophobic, they will always find something to complain about and have a silly agenda.

    I want my own word for myself and my girlfriend. She’s too beautiful inside and out to share a label with intolerant homophobes.

  106. #106 Michael X
    September 17, 2008

    llewelly@99

    Reading the comments above – I guess I don’t need to remind people that California elected Reagan governor twice. And then California helped elect Reagan president twice!

    Being a CA native, I couldn’t agree with that more. It is simple apathetic belief in stereotyping that leads people to believe that CA will always be liberal. Nutters are everywhere and CA is no exception. Hell, there is a strong movement to pass the initiative overturning the legalization of gay marriage this election and most people I know are apathetic about it, simply assuming that because CA has such a reputation of liberalism, no such initiative will fly.

    Most of them also forget that our current governor is a republican. I believe some shin kicking will soon come into order if people don’t wake up.

  107. #107 Azkyroth
    September 17, 2008

    But then, they probably want to raise another generation of spoiled monsters with an easily offended sense of privilege.

    You mean “sense of entitlement.” These fuckers don’t understand the concept of privilege.

  108. #108 Master Mahan
    September 17, 2008

    Love, commitment, and companionship? No, the point of marriage is to celebrate that gays aren’t allowed to do it. If the state of California takes away these people’s right to take away other people’s rights, then they might as well not marry. Doubtless gays destroyed their first marriages as well.

    Seriously, this is so stupid it makes my teeth hurt. Since Party 1 and Party 2 is too vague for these two, perhaps Douchebag and Asshole would be more appropriate. No, wait, those are still gender-neutral…

  109. #109 Dancaban
    September 17, 2008

    Bird and Codding. Sounds like some obscure Real Ale. Perhaps they should have a drink and sober up?

  110. #110 usagi
    September 17, 2008

    @Pimientita

    I think that Alan Chapman was speaking hypothetically. He was offering a vision of what could be used in place of only marriage conferring these benefits on one’s partner(s) in order to argue for the state getting out of the marriage business.

    Then he was doing a piss-poor job of it. My tolerance for pie-in-the-sky libertarian fantasies of free market utopia has grown very thin in recent years. The very idea that the state could “get out of the marriage business” is a blindingly naive idea on its face. The attendant rights and privileges conferred by marriage are an integral part of established law stretching back essentially to the start of the modern legal tradition. That’s why this fight is happening.

  111. #111 SEF
    September 17, 2008

    they simply register the legal relationship of “Party A” and “Party B” … And to Bird and Codding, that is unacceptable.

    In an Onion-style version of that story, they should be whinging that they want to be party B and C instead (from their surnames) or fowl and fish…

  112. #112 BMS
    September 17, 2008

    . . . in order to argue for the state getting out of the marriage business.

    Sure he was.

    But let’s just take that assertion and explore it a bit.

    So what happens when the state gets out of the marriage business.

    What happens to intestate succession (you know, when someone dies without a will)? Right now, spouse takes first, generally, followed by other family members if no spouse. State’s out of the equation, and can no longer enforce spouse’s position? Then spouse HAS NO RIGHTS to a share of deceased spouse’s estate. An estate the spouse likely built together with the deceased.

    —-

    You know what? Fuck this. No spoon-feeding. I’m so fucking sick of ignoramuses saying “get the state out of the marriage business” when they then offer absolutely no sound alternative (and usually no alternative whatsoever) to the rights, duties, and obligations the state enforces on behalf of said spouses, and when merely presenting this blighted assertion evidences their obvious ignorance of those rights, duties, and obligations.

    Y’know, the federal code lists 1,138 separate mentions of the word “marriage” in 13 different categories. I wish these dipshits would use Google and look it all the fuck up.

    Fuck it. I’m going to bed. With my marriage certificate. Stupid ignorant fuckers.

  113. #113 SEF
    September 17, 2008

    @ biogeek #74:

    I so miss living where I could throw a rock and hit people who are not demented fuckwits.

    Oi! Just because the fundies are keen on stoning anyone who isn’t conforming to precisely the same brand of delusional nuttery as they themselves are (pretending to do), doesn’t mean you have to join them in trying to bump off any of the better people around.
    ;-)

  114. #114 Ragutis
    September 17, 2008

    Damn you gays! Look what you’ve done to society! How could you? You mean, mean gays!

    Really? These Gumbies couldn’t think of something less ridiculous and/or inconsequential to target with their mock-outrage?

    “If ever there was a time for the people of the United States to stand up and let their voices be heard – this is that time.”

    No, this is the time for the rational and reasonable people to stand up, point at you idjits and laugh, laugh, laugh.

    Bird and Codding say they are trying to figure out what to do next. Bird said she does not know what she will do if she should become ill and need insurance. “I really don’t know,” she said.

    Hmm, sucks doesn’t it? Now imagine how you might feel if that was because the state was discriminating against you instead of you just being petulant and stupid. Ignorant tw@.

    Then again, I don’t understand what the big deal is about them penciling in bride/groom either. They didn’t even cross out Party A/Party B.

  115. #115 Rik.
    September 17, 2008

    I want to be called the Great Quackaloon on my marriage license if I ever get married. ‘cuz that’s traditional in my religion.
    Whaddaya mean that ain’t possible? This is unfair! I’m bein’ persecuted!

    Goddamn state ruinin me happiness. How can I get married if I am not referred to as the Great Quackaloon on an official guvment document?

  116. #116 DrFrank
    September 17, 2008

    Come on, the form is still obviously discriminatory – I mean, who would want to be Party B, implying that they’re less important in the marriage than Party A?

    They should change it to Party A and Party 1 ;)

  117. #117 Luger Otter Robinson
    September 17, 2008

    If they object to being referred to Party A and Party B, why don’t they just cross out the “offending” words and replace them with the terms they prefer? I have looked at the form, and there doesn’t seem to be any note that modification of the form invalidates it.

  118. #118 Torvo
    September 17, 2008

    If the license reads as a contract, can it be enforced as a contract? I mean, if the couple subsequently gets divorced, can Party A sue Party B for breach? Adding that legal concept to the marriage license should give the fundies food for thought, as it further protects rather than weakens marriage.

  119. #119 DuckPhup
    September 17, 2008

    If there’s anything that should be abolished here… in the civil arena, at least… it is government involvement in ‘marriage’ itself. Instead, all civil unions should be governed by a ‘Domestic Partnership Agreement’ (DPA), which could be entered into by any mentally competent adult parties, or parties who are otherwise legally emancipated within their particular civil subdivision of residence. The traditional ‘marriage’ rites, ceremonies, hand-waving, incantations, vows, etc., should subsequently be regarded as optional accouterments… ‘icing on the cake’, so-to-speak. If somebody wants to enhance their civil contract with a supplementary agreement in which ‘god’ is an interested 3rd-party, then they need to go down the street to the place where the witch-doctors do business… and the state should have nothing to do with it.

    This approach would open up some interesting possibilities. For one, it would be silly to limit such agreements to 2 parties of the opposite sex… or even to limit the number of parties to the agreement. ‘Divorce’ would become a obsolete… an archaic term applied to a particular class of contractual dispute. Certain kinds of contracts may have a section titled “TERM AND TERMINATION,” addressing when, how and under what conditions the parties’ connections and obligations can be severed without the involvement of the court system, and litigation. Why should a DPA be any different? How about a 5-year term, with renewal options?

    Anyway… unions between individuals need to be disconnected from the religious baggage that has been dragged behind it for centuries uncountable. To me, this seems the best way to do it.

  120. #120 Vicki
    September 17, 2008

    And of course they have an option that their queer neighbors don’t: drive to Nevada (or any other state in the Union) and get married there. On a form offered only to mixed-sex couples, and that will be recognized anywhere in the United States. But then they’d have nothing to whine about.

  121. #121 Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT
    September 17, 2008

    Party ALL THE TIME, of course.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5LX16zia2k

    That sound you heard was the reverberations of Eddie jumping the shark in 1985.

  122. #122 Russell
    September 17, 2008

    The entire format of the argument being used is old and tired. Gay marriage, stem cells, abortion, the list goes on. People whose view of ethics are founded in a mandate from god will always quote mantra’s. The trick is to work toward the goal of educating the young. You aren’t going to see any rapid change of minds. Whatever twisted byzantine morality filter these people use to make decisions and say the bigoted shit they say, is likely the best they will ever be able to do. Subsequent generations are where the hope for the future lays. So in a way, we have a responsibility to teach our own controversy and create a huge buzz just to get the kids attention away from the mind numbing television.

    PZ seems to be right on track doing just that.

  123. #123 Niobe
    September 17, 2008

    I vaguely recall our marriage application having 2 sets of checkboxes denoting sex. (Dutch, gay marriage legal since ’01).

    Even still, these people would also throw a tizzy if the man wasn’t named first on the paper or something. “Its MISTER and MRS!”

  124. #124 N.B.
    September 17, 2008

    @#56 Alan Chapman

    Without a state-approved marriage, your wife could still be on your health insurance and still make her own medical decisions. She could do these things because that what consumers would demand.

    Well, sure I think this would be fantastic, except for the fact that it hasn’t happened yet, and it seems even more unlikely than the alternative–which is to let anybody marry whoever they want. I say it seems more unlikely because your idea totally wrecks an existing institution whereas simply eliminating that pesky “one man, one woman” rhetoric preserves a system that people are very attached to for various reasons.

    Marriage is a legal contract between two people. I’m don’t think that the state needs to recognize “marriages.” I think that the state needs to recognize “legal contracts.” And currently, the only legal contract that will give you child visitation rights, let you see your partner in the hospital, guarantee that you can get health coverage for your entire family, and many other benefits is called “marriage.” So I’m going to keep advocating extending the benefits of “marriage” to whoever wants them.

    If the magic competition fairy is going to give people all of these benefits and somehow cut out the government, I’m kind of curious how much longer we’re going to have to wait, because consumers have been demanding these things for a long time. How can you have a legal contract that doesn’t somehow involve government? Who is enforcing the contract?

    (Hint: If it’s “private individuals,” a group of individuals that exists to arbitrate disputes regarding legal contracts is still functionally “a government,” or more specifically, the judicial branch of one.)

  125. #125 Eric
    September 17, 2008

    Do they also have an issue with the term “spouse?” Its gender neutral too.

    Torvo,
    AFAIK in the US it is a contract. For intsance, adultery is a type of breach of contract. Even though its legal in most states, its still grounds for divorce for that reason.

    I haven’t been through one but my guess is that its more common to penalize the breacher in the divorce proceedings rather than in a separate suit.

  126. #126 Jason Failes
    September 17, 2008

    But I want my drivers license to say “Driver:” or Speed Racer:”, not “Name:”.

    I’m going on worldnutdaily and churning out an “exclusive story” right away.

  127. #127 Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT
    September 17, 2008

    Well they could go here and get a license. I’m sure it says exactly what they want.

  128. #128 Sastra
    September 17, 2008

    “Those who support (same-sex marriage) say it has no impact on heterosexuals,” said Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute. “This debunks that argument.”

    No, it still has no impact on heterosexuals. Heterosexuals can still get married. So can Christians. It has an impact on religious bigots, however.

    But extending freedom always has an impact on bigots. When they allowed ‘colored folk’ to drink from the same public drinking fountains and swim at the same public swimming pools as white folk, an awful lot of white folk were put out, and either had to go thirsty and stay out of the water, or drink from their own damn tap and build their own damn pools. It really impacted their lives.

    Till they eventually got over it.

    I find it interesting when the same people who think atheists should have no problem with the government teaching their children that the United States is “under God” are getting their undies in a bunch because the government is using neutral terms on a form. They keep telling us to get over it and go along with it. I wonder how they’d feel if the default terms weren’t Bride and Groom or Party A and Party B, but “Homosexual A” and “Homosexual B.”

  129. #129 Michelle
    September 17, 2008

    “If ever there was a time for the people of the United States to stand up and let their voices be heard – this is that time.”

    …Wow. Like every time I hear such things, the logical conclusion is that religious people have failing priorities and are all about stopping progress.

  130. #130 Nerd of Redhead
    September 17, 2008

    I always thought that last minute changes to legal documents could be made if both parties signed and dated the changes. If so, what’s the problem?
    That little piece of paper can be important. My employer is trying to reduce their benefit costs, so they are doing an audit of dependents. I will have to prove that the Redhead and I are legally married in order to keep her on my health and dental plans.

  131. #131 poke
    September 17, 2008
  132. #132 Enrique
    September 17, 2008

    Conservatives reacted in the same manner when homosexual legal unions where approved in Spain for the first time. Of course, when homosexual marriage became legal some time later, things got even tougher.
    They’re never happy, aren’t they?

  133. #133 gravitybear
    September 17, 2008

    Wackaloonery indeed!
    Oh noes, the gov is persecuting me by not using my preferred title on a form!

    The only appropriate response is to point and laugh.

  134. #134 SteveM
    September 17, 2008

    If the license reads as a contract, can it be enforced as a contract? I mean, if the couple subsequently gets divorced, can Party A sue Party B for breach?

    What? That is what a divorce is, a dissolution of that contract. In a divorce Party A is indeed suing Party B for breach.

  135. #135 Ian
    September 17, 2008

    “Those words have been used for generations and now they just changed them.”

    They had slavery for years and then they just changed it. Does that mean they were wrong?! Why aren’t Christians up in arms about that?!

  136. #136 Big Cat
    September 17, 2008

    Meh.

    There’s an easy way to deprive these people of the victim(how-do-you-do-a-strikethrough)martyrdom they crave.

    During the Clinton administration there was this fundie medical corpsman who refused an assignment to Bosnia because he conscientiously objected to wearing a blue helmet and taking orders from UN “furriners”. Instead of court martialing him for insubordination and making a martyr of him they should have given him a nice little backwater assignment handing out band-aids at Fort Dix until his hitch was up, with no promotions or opportunity for advancement. Then Buh-by.

    In this case the county official should have just ignored the written in “bride” and “groom”. In future versions of the form maybe there should be blank spaces where you can write in bride and groom or mare and stallion or god and goddess or whatever suits you.

  137. #137 Matt Heath
    September 17, 2008

    Only slightly off topic: Hooray for the BE and the Greens for bringing a bill for same sex marriages in Portugal. If it achieves nothing else (highly likely) it will at least shine the spotlight on which centrist politicians are bigoted enough to be attack it.

  138. #138 diagoras
    September 17, 2008

    Prop 8 is on the California ballot this November, trying to change the California constitution so same-sex couples can’t marry and so marriage is defined as only between one man and one woman. That’s the reason that these jokers are throwing their very public little bitch-fit.

    http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm

    Pacific Justice Institute is one the quoted peeps in the article and also one of the groups that endorse that ridiculous Prop on the ballot. As is daddy’s little congregation. Surprise, surprise.

  139. #139 Christopher Fish
    September 17, 2008

    I hope these two nutjobs use the same logic and refuse to fill out federal and state income tax forms, which name the parties “you” and “spouse”, rather than, as they’d prefer “husband” and “wife”.

  140. #140 Tulse
    September 17, 2008

    it still has no impact on heterosexuals. Heterosexuals can still get married.

    I’m amused that this wording is very similar to the “argument” used by fundies against the civil rights claims of same-sex marriage proponents: “Gays aren’t being discriminated against — just like everyone else they can still get married to someone of the opposite sex!”

  141. #141 xebecs
    September 17, 2008

    I personally would prefer to refer to the parties as
    Alice and Bob, with the option to continue down the list as needed.

  142. #142 Ollie
    September 17, 2008

    >> They are now exploring their options, she said.

    There’s probably a lot of gay couples who, not knowing anything about them, would probably be able to help them out in this regard, having until recently had no other option than complicated legal contracts and such.

  143. #143 Steve
    September 17, 2008

    The state shouldn’t be involved in marriages anyway, except to record them. Any contract entered into by two people that establishes a relationship where they share resources should be recognized as marriage. The only problem I have with polygamy is that it strains the systems that are meant to cre for the poor and elderly – and leaves some polygamists completely out. Why are people so damned concerned with what is happening in their neighbor’s house?

  144. #144 tsg
    September 17, 2008

    I think that Alan Chapman was speaking hypothetically. He was offering a vision of what could be used in place of only marriage conferring these benefits on one’s partner(s) in order to argue for the state getting out of the marriage business.

    Without the state’s force of law behind the agreement, there is no marriage.

    Having had this argument before, I can tell you what inevitably ends up happening is the person arguing against “the state being in the marriage business” ends up defining one of two things: 1) precisely what we have now under a different name (albeit with fewer restrictions on who can marry, which is what we’re trying to change); or 2) the same thing we have now except it is unenforceable.

    It’s a waste of time even having the argument.

  145. #145 FastLane
    September 17, 2008

    Hah, what a bunch of whiners.

    One of my best friends (and one who got a ‘reverend’ title so he could perform the marriage ceremony for me and my wife) had been living together for years when they finally decided to have some kind of formal ceremony. It was really just an excuse to invite friends and family and have a big party.

    For their ‘wedding vows’, they took the traditional religious ceremony, and made about half the words blanks, and made it a game of Mad-libs. =) It was great fun.

    Cheers.

  146. #146 flynn
    September 17, 2008

    Huh. My marriage certificate just had blanks for names, no title or label at all. Problem solved. The blanks that did get labels were the age blanks. It’s Kentucky, we gotta keep track of that stuff.

  147. #147 jj
    September 17, 2008

    @2
    “Fundies? In California? Who let them across the border?”

    We’ve had our fundies in the central valley (Fresno, Molest-o) and in the richie southern areas (San Diego, Parts of Orange)for a LONG time. We just don’t listen to them

  148. #148 Sili
    September 17, 2008

    So presumably these concerned christians(tm) will volunteer to cover the extra cost of printing two different certificates? Just like they’ll pay for rewriting each and every relevant law to cover “marriage and civil unions”?

    Aren’t these the same people that whine about unneccessary goverment spending?

    :rolls eyes:

  149. #149 Jaded Skeptic
    September 17, 2008

    I find it almost humorous, except they really do want to now strip away these rights from homosexuals. I am sure they hate all this legalize…until one decides they want a divorse, at which point it will all be about the law.

  150. #150 Naked Bunny with a Whip
    September 17, 2008

    I just hope the multi-party forms have a space large enough for a large paw print.

    Or hoofprint, mrawr!

  151. #151 Carlie
    September 17, 2008

    Hm. If either of them have been married and divorced before, the proper Biblical term is “adulterer”. So would they be happy if that term was the one used on their marriage license? It would be the most Godly way to do it, you know.

  152. #152 Deb
    September 17, 2008

    #53
    “Maybe California should have a separate form for whiny idiots, with one space labelled HETEROSEXUAL GROOM WHO IS NOT GAY and one labelled HIS BRIDE WHO IS OF THE OPPOSITE SEX BECAUSE HE IS NOT GAY.”

    ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  153. #153 tsg
    September 17, 2008

    I can sum this whole shit up in one sentence: Christians claiming they are being discriminated against because the wording on a government form isn’t discriminatory enough.

    I can also sum it up in one word: Typical.

  154. #154 Sili
    September 17, 2008

    No “Party of the first party” jokes yet?

  155. #155 Cliff Hendroval
    September 17, 2008

    Looking at the story, they have everything they need for a great white trash fundie marriage; at least one divorce, out-of-wedlock kids, and restraining orders, all while both parties are under 30.

    Hooray for traditional marriage!

  156. #156 AtheistAcolyte
    September 17, 2008

    If they’re so concerned about having rights, maybe they could register as a Domestic Partnership.

    Wait…

  157. #157 tsg
    September 17, 2008

    Looking at the story, they have everything they need for a great white trash fundie marriage; at least one divorce, out-of-wedlock kids, and restraining orders, all while both parties are under 30.

    Hooray for traditional marriage!

    It’s only a traditional marriage if the bride’s father was holding a shotgun.

  158. #158 Ragutis
    September 17, 2008

    Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | September 17, 2008 12:22 PM

    I just hope the multi-party forms have a space large enough for a large paw print.

    Or hoofprint, mrawr!

    Sizequeen. :p

  159. #159 Cuttlefish, OM
    September 17, 2008

    Now that the comment thread has slowed down and it is too late…

    My comments and verse, revised and extended:

    http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2008/09/party.html

  160. #161 KevinBBG
    September 17, 2008

    Maybe Christian will stop getting married and will stop reproducing. That would be nice.

  161. #162 tsg
    September 17, 2008

    Maybe Christian will stop getting married and will stop reproducing.

    I doubt it. Putting “Tab A” in “Slot B” is not one of the things they have a problem doing.

  162. #163 Ichthyic
    September 17, 2008

    @112:

    Fuck it. I’m going to bed. With my marriage certificate.

    Well, Ok, but I hope you at least had it laminated first.

    (Otherwise I don’t think it would last too long).

    :p

  163. #164 LightningRose
    September 17, 2008

    My momma refers to this as “cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    Of course, well known convicted tax evader Kent “Dr Dino” Hovind urges all good Xians to forgo state issued marriage licenses entirely, a view he’s held since well before the current marriage kerfuffle.

    http://freehovind.com/info-should_christians_obtain_a_state_marriage_license

  164. #165 Ichthyic
    September 17, 2008

    Hovind urges all good Xians to forgo state issued marriage licenses entirely

    Heh, that Hovind, what a maverick…

    What’s that you say?

    McCain is the one claiming the title of maverick?

    my bad.

  165. #166 Nothing Sacred
    September 17, 2008

    My favorite comment from the SacBee (really, what a terrible word combination; as disgusting as it is, I can’t help but imagine a yellow-and-black striped scrotum) comments section:

    “friendofGod at 2:58 PM PST Tuesday, September 16, 2008 said:

    Bride and groom is as natural and traditional as a bar-be-que on the 4th of July. I am very sad that this is even being debated. I feel sad for my young daughter who dreams of what being a bride will be like. This whole “gay marriage” fiasco is ruining a special tradition. Why should we have to change everything to fit this very unnatural lifestyle? Get hitched if you must, but don’t change the true meaning of a wedding. I am so glad I had my wedding in the 20th century.”

    Here’s to traditions less than 50 years old! Bar-Be-Ques on the fourth of July and marrying for love rather than money!

    I’m with friendofgod here. I think we should continue celebrating weddings the way we did in the good old days. In the Middle Ages, they knew what a wedding meant: taking a young woman away from her family and selling her to a much older man she’s never seen before so her father can have money. Isn’t tradition SWEET?! Oh, and don’t forget the public airing of the blood-stained sheets after the groom violates his virginal new bride! Friendofgod, isn’t it so sad that your daughter won’t be able to experience that traditional, brutal public humiliation?

    And by the way, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but your “friend” is an asshole. A selfish, bitter, crazy, racist, homicidal, filicidal, genocidal asshole.

  166. #167 Snus
    September 17, 2008

    Bird and Codding is actually a really nasty gay bar in a really nasty part of Manchester.

    Get it? Bird and Cod….? Oh, never mind.

    Look, if they’re so TRADITIONALIST, why are they allowing the STATE to have any say over their marriage at all? Shouldn’t they just be having Jeebus bless it with special Jeebus rays inside their special little Jeebus-nook of traditional Jeebusness? Why are they bothering with the satanic secular state of Californication whatever atall nohow anyway?

    Oh yeah, because they want all those secular perks. Like health insurance, which daddy’s girl Bird can’t seem to provide for herself but has to marry for. You’d think their fabulous special traditionalist religious community and fambully would provide that, rather than, you know, them having to get it from satanic species traitors and queer lovers who, you know, make possible all the secular perks that you have to….

    Sorry, my head just exploded.

  167. #168 Snus
    September 17, 2008

    PS, PZ…”ridiculous sanctimony” is redundant.

  168. #169 Ichthyic
    September 17, 2008

    special Jeebus rays

    haven’t we made that into gun form yet?

  169. #170 cureholder
    September 17, 2008

    If you haven’t followed the link to the full version of Cuttlefish’s exquisite rhyme (#159), do yourself a favor and take two minutes. It’s even better unabridged.

    Kudos as usual, Cuttlefish!

  170. #171 CrossBuster
    September 17, 2008

    Histrionic pedants!

  171. #172 Renee
    September 17, 2008

    Talk about hetero privilege. They are upset because they no longer have the right to control language…aww poor babies.

  172. #173 wrpd
    September 17, 2008

    Why can’t we go back to the good old days when you could call a colored person a colored person, or a faggot a faggot, or a kike a kike? Nothing is sacred anymore. And what about that great word “gay” that they stole from us? I don’t think I can even call my (theoretical) wife “my old ball and chain” without getting looks from people. The same looks I get when I tell her in public to “Shut the fuck up, you stupid bitch!”
    And isn’t the mormon plural of the word spouse spice?

  173. #174 Rey Fox
    September 17, 2008

    “Since Party 1 and Party 2 is too vague for these two, perhaps Douchebag and Asshole would be more appropriate. No, wait, those are still gender-neutral…”

    How about Wanker and Wankette?

  174. #175 chgo_liz
    September 18, 2008

    Excellent, Cuttlefish, especially the extended version!

    It’s amazing how much effort some people will make just to be offended.

  175. #176 Eshto
    September 18, 2008

    Actually, I think them subjecting themselves to this “penalty” will only highlight the legal rights associated with marriage, that were being denied same-sex couples before the law was changed.

    Now the righties can’t keep saying gays already have all the same rights and that we don’t need marriage recognition.

  176. #177 MrsVeteran
    September 18, 2008

    What the … 175 comments and no one has mentioned the BEST quote of all? “‘… we just feel that our rights have been violated,’ she said.”

    Our … rights.

    Have been … violated.

    Irony, thy name is “Party A.”

    Or is it “Party B?”

    All them parties look alike to me…

    *headdesk*

  177. #178 David Marjanovi?, OM
    September 18, 2008

    victim(how-do-you-do-a-strikethrough)martyrdom

    <s>This way.</s>

    victimmartyrdom

    Bird and Codding is actually a really nasty gay bar in a really nasty part of Manchester.

    ROTFL! Praise the humor of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

  178. #179 s.v.
    September 18, 2008

    Boo-hoo. It’s a shame too; I bet these geniuses are eager to procreate.

  179. #180 S.M. Hall
    September 18, 2008

    Wow, what a let down for anyone looking forward to that wedding.

  180. #181 BMS
    September 19, 2008

    Ichthyic @ 163

    Well, Ok, but I hope you at least had it laminated first.

    Natch! ;)

  181. #182 Zoe Brain
    September 19, 2008

    When they saw the terms, Codding wrote “groom” next to “Party A” and “bride” next to Party B and submitted their license. On Aug. 16, they married at her father’s church.

    On Sept. 3, the couple received a letter from the Placer County Clerk-Recorder Registrar of Voters informing them that their license did not comply with California law and that the state did not accept licenses that had been altered.

    That is bureaucratic BS. Ok, they’re being unbearably precious about it, but I have to say that the Placer County Clerk is even worse. I hope they appeal on the basis that the original license was not substantially altered, and win.

    I have little time for God-Botherers, but I have less time for ridiculous administrative megalomania like this.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.