…and this is a 
Ridiculous sanctimony
Category: Kooks
Posted on: September 16, 2008 10:54 PM, by PZ Myers
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
Posted by: GK4 | September 16, 2008 11:00 PM
Since their names are Bird and Codding, maybe they would prefer to be called "Party B" and "Party C"?
;)
Posted by: Roy | September 16, 2008 11:03 PM
Fundies? In California? Who let them across the border?
Posted by: ChrisC | September 16, 2008 11:06 PM
"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?
Posted by: Alan Chapman | September 16, 2008 11:07 PM
It's important for some people to have their relationships state-approved. Just get the government out of the marriage business altogether.
Posted by: Paul Brown | September 16, 2008 11:08 PM
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.
Posted by: Raynfala | September 16, 2008 11:10 PM
Love Conquers All*
* except for a distate for gender-neutral marriage licenses...
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2008 11:10 PM
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
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? Secular government, secular institution, secular recognition; nothing wrong at all. A secular government has to be accomodating to everyone...
Posted by: N.B. | September 16, 2008 11:11 PM
@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?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | September 16, 2008 11:11 PM
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.
Posted by: Raynfala | September 16, 2008 11:11 PM
errr distaste...
*shuffles feet in embarrassment*
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2008 11:12 PM
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
Posted by: CalGeorge | September 16, 2008 11:14 PM
Hey, no fair!
Equal rights for "Party C"!
Posted by: Nasikabatrachus | September 16, 2008 11:15 PM
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?
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | September 16, 2008 11:16 PM
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!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | September 16, 2008 11:16 PM
Yes just after he visited here and showed the Israelites around.
*too much
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | September 16, 2008 11:18 PM
Once again , cuttlefish displays that he is 100% win at the molecular level.
Posted by: Kel | September 16, 2008 11:20 PM
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.Posted by: aratina | September 16, 2008 11:22 PM
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.
Posted by: I am so wise | September 16, 2008 11:22 PM
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.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | September 16, 2008 11:22 PM
Rev. BDC, I have to agree that cuttlefish has outdone himself today.
Posted by: Daddy Stegosaurus | September 16, 2008 11:23 PM
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?
Posted by: Eamon Knight | September 16, 2008 11:23 PM
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.
Posted by: SteveWH | September 16, 2008 11:23 PM
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.
Posted by: Derik N | September 16, 2008 11:27 PM
idiots
Posted by: chrislrob | September 16, 2008 11:28 PM
Ridiculous.
They might as well say they are impacted because gays getting married makes the line at the courthouse longer.
Posted by: HappyKiwi | September 16, 2008 11:28 PM
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.
Posted by: Roy | September 16, 2008 11:28 PM
@#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.
Posted by: The Chemist | September 16, 2008 11:33 PM
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.
Posted by: anthropicOne | September 16, 2008 11:33 PM
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.
Posted by: cicely | September 16, 2008 11:36 PM
Applause for Cuttlefish @ 15.
Awesomeness.
Posted by: DangerAardvark | September 16, 2008 11:36 PM
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.
Posted by: Kel | September 16, 2008 11:40 PM
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
Posted by: The Dark Avenger | September 16, 2008 11:42 PM
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.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2008 11:44 PM
I should know, I live there.
ouch.
Posted by: Erik D Johnson | September 16, 2008 11:44 PM
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.
Posted by: tsg | September 16, 2008 11:44 PM
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."
Posted by: tony | September 16, 2008 11:45 PM
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.
Posted by: Ron Sullivan | September 16, 2008 11:45 PM
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.
Posted by: Mike from Ottawa | September 16, 2008 11:45 PM
That taking yourself hostage schtick worked better when it was Cleavon Little doing it in Blazing Saddles. A great scene.
Posted by: Clemens | September 16, 2008 11:48 PM
No no, you must reverse the fatwha envy, like
"You wouldn't complain if a Muslim had designed those forms".
Posted by: cactusren | September 16, 2008 11:52 PM
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.
Posted by: inkadu | September 16, 2008 11:55 PM
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.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 16, 2008 11:56 PM
"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!"
Posted by: Mashenka | September 16, 2008 11:56 PM
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.
Posted by: inkadu | September 16, 2008 11:57 PM
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?
Posted by: cureholder | September 16, 2008 11:57 PM
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.'
Posted by: tsg | September 16, 2008 11:58 PM
Marriage carries legal benefits that incorporation doesn't.
Posted by: cactusren | September 16, 2008 11:59 PM
Oh, and props to Cuttlefish!
Posted by: peacefully evyl | September 16, 2008 11:59 PM
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.
Posted by: tsg | September 17, 2008 12:01 AM
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?
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 17, 2008 12:03 AM
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.
Posted by: MissPrism | September 17, 2008 12:04 AM
'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.
Posted by: Kel | September 17, 2008 12:04 AM
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.Posted by: Nentuaby | September 17, 2008 12:04 AM
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.
Posted by: Alan Chapman | September 17, 2008 12:05 AM
#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.
Posted by: BobC | September 17, 2008 12:05 AM
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.
Posted by: Paula Helm Murray | September 17, 2008 12:07 AM
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.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 17, 2008 12:08 AM
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled 5-2 Monday in favor of full, equal, and mandatory gay marriages for all citizens.
Jeeeeefffffffff!
;)
Posted by: normalityrelief | September 17, 2008 12:13 AM
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...
Posted by: BMS | September 17, 2008 12:17 AM
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.
.
.
.
Posted by: Zar | September 17, 2008 12:18 AM
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.
Posted by: Greta Christina | September 17, 2008 12:19 AM
aratina (#19):
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.
Posted by: CanadaGoose | September 17, 2008 12:26 AM
>>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.
Posted by: Colin | September 17, 2008 12:27 AM
@32: "...Poof, you're married..."
But that's what they're objecting to in the first place!
Posted by: scooter | September 17, 2008 12:30 AM
Would the Bee please kiss her A.
Posted by: crossbuck | September 17, 2008 12:32 AM
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.
Posted by: amplexus | September 17, 2008 12:34 AM
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
Posted by: BMS | September 17, 2008 12:36 AM
Greta Christina-
Congratulations to you and Ingrid on your recent nuptials!!!
Posted by: wrpd | September 17, 2008 12:38 AM
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
Posted by: 5ive | September 17, 2008 12:47 AM
@#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....
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 17, 2008 12:47 AM
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
Posted by: Kyle S | September 17, 2008 12:52 AM
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".
Posted by: biogeek | September 17, 2008 12:54 AM
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.
Posted by: Kel | September 17, 2008 12:54 AM
"They changed a label on a form. Persecition! Persecution!!! Help, save me Jesus"Posted by: Jay | September 17, 2008 12:55 AM
How can anyone act so ridiculously? What's wrong with these people?
Posted by: Rey Fox | September 17, 2008 12:58 AM
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?
Posted by: Donovan | September 17, 2008 1:02 AM
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.
Posted by: Former PZ Student | September 17, 2008 1:06 AM
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.
Posted by: paul | September 17, 2008 1:08 AM
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.
Posted by: Brian X | September 17, 2008 1:12 AM
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).
Posted by: Scott | September 17, 2008 1:12 AM
Damn, they say liberals are whiny and irrational?!
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 17, 2008 1:13 AM
Party _____ and Party _____.
hmm
party NOW and Party ALL NIGHT LONG.
?
Posted by: Andy | September 17, 2008 1:14 AM
"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?
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 17, 2008 1:15 AM
Shin (a lightpost in front of City Hall).
damn! Is she available?
excuse me...
Posted by: usagi | September 17, 2008 1:17 AM
That is simply incorrect. Marriage, in this use, is a legal contract that confers a specific standing within the law to the participants.
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.
Posted by: Former PZ Student | September 17, 2008 1:24 AM
"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.
Posted by: pcarini | September 17, 2008 1:27 AM
Erik D Johnson @ #36
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?
Posted by: Mariana | September 17, 2008 1:27 AM
@ 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.
Posted by: FlameDuck | September 17, 2008 1:38 AM
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. 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.Posted by: SC | September 17, 2008 1:38 AM
Party ALL THE TIME, of course.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5LX16zia2k
Posted by: JB | September 17, 2008 1:39 AM
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.