…and this is a 
Here comes the bride
Category: Kooks
Posted on: October 7, 2008 9:52 AM, by PZ Myers
Remember Rachel Bird and Gideon Codding, the spoiled, petulant little whiners who wanted their state issued marriage license to call them "bride and groom"? The ones who were being used as a wingnut cause celebre to argue that gender neutrality really does hurt heterosexual marriages?
Bad news. They won. California caved and changed the wording on the licenses.
Now gay couples getting married in California will have to get their revenge: they should cheerfully appropriate the terms bride and groom, too. Rachel Bird can call herself a bride (she could all along, of course), but so can the biggest, butchest, bristly-bearded gay leatherman with a biker mustache…and he should be able to get state recognition of his status as a bride.
It's only fair, after all.
Comments
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 7, 2008 10:10 AM
I thought that was one of the options that we decided was indeed more fair to all parties concerned? Self-declare! Bride and groom? How about innie and outie? Top and bottom? Over and under? Cephalopod and mammal? &c, &c.
Posted by: asad | October 7, 2008 10:10 AM
Hi PZ -- did you read the article? It says the new license allows couples to put whatever they want in -- either "bride" and "groom" or "bride" and "bride" or "groom" and "groom" -- or to leave the spaces blank.
Nobody loses, some people are placated...meh, doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
Posted by: Hanes | October 7, 2008 10:10 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c&feature=related
"You want to have babies?"
"It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them!"
"But you can't have babies!"
"Don't you oppress me."
Posted by: asad | October 7, 2008 10:13 AM
Hi PZ -- did you read the article? It says the new license allows couples to put whatever they want in -- either "bride" and "groom" or "bride" and "bride" or "groom" and "groom" -- or to leave the spaces blank.
Nobody loses, some people are placated...meh, doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
Posted by: Tulse | October 7, 2008 10:20 AM
Yeah, the actual solution seems quite reasonable. I have no problem with people wanting to use the traditional terms if they want, I just object to them imposing them on others as a stealth way of opposing gay marriage. The forms now allow everyone to call themselves whatever they want, and that seems like the right approach to me. This isn't a win for intolerance, it's a win for everyone.
Posted by: Your Name's Not Bruce? | October 7, 2008 10:20 AM
I just wish that those who are so afraid of gay marriage "hurting" heterosexual marriage would explain exactly how this was possible. I don't think they can because I don't think it does.
Unless of course they mean that it displeases their god and could result in smiting or plagues of boils, and, their god having such poor aim that the innocent are targeted along with the "guilty",(think "universal flood")then yeah, I get it completely.
Posted by: Tulse | October 7, 2008 10:22 AM
Yeah, the actual solution seems quite reasonable. I have no problem with people wanting to use the traditional terms if they want, I just object to them imposing them on others as a stealth way of opposing gay marriage. The forms now allow everyone to call themselves whatever they want, and that seems like the right approach to me. This isn't a win for intolerance, it's a win for everyone.
Posted by: Tim | October 7, 2008 10:25 AM
If it's by mutual consent, and they're of age, it's not my business, but please, spare me the details.
Posted by: Adviser Moppet | October 7, 2008 10:26 AM
My prediction is that they'll get divorced in about four years and wind up hating each others guts. It's amazing how high the divorce rate is in the country, but Oh NOES it's the gays that are destroying the sanctity of marriage.
Posted by: CSBSH | October 7, 2008 10:27 AM
The change (that you can now fill in all combinations) is perfectly fine with me, but I think the couple who took this to court are morons, and I'm not happy with the fact that they think they've done something good.
Posted by: Timothy Wood | October 7, 2008 10:31 AM
Math is to numerology as Linguistics/Grammar is to... wordology?
It never ceases to amaze me how people seem to think that there is something mystical and inherent about the meaning of words. It's like nobody understands how arbitrary a definition is.
Posted by: chgo_liz | October 7, 2008 10:32 AM
I'm with CSBSH. I think the court (judge? jury?) figured out a good solution, but I hate the fact that the couple is gloating and thinking that they've "won".
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 7, 2008 10:32 AM
asad is correct. You don't even have to check any of the boxes. There's nothing official about it. This is much ado about nothing on both sides. How's that economy doing?
Posted by: Debi Linton | October 7, 2008 10:35 AM
But will big butch bristly-bearded straight leathermen be allowed to declare themselves to be brides? That's what I want to know.
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 7, 2008 10:36 AM
( from here: http://web.archive.org/web/20040213000819/www.chaparraltree.com/raq/rename.shtml )
(pity Sb won't let commenters post tables. oh well.)
Posted by: divalent | October 7, 2008 10:41 AM
Hey, don't you think the wording is important to strengthen the family and the marraige? I mean, they are both in their 20s, and between them they have 5 children from prior relationships, and she's the daughter of a christian minister. They *really* need this wording or the state will be responsible if their marraige fails.
Posted by: Tempyra | October 7, 2008 10:41 AM
So, in a hetero marriage the guy could call himself the bride and the woman the groom? It seems Rachel Bird and Gideon Codding didn't really prove anything by going to court (except that they're capable of wasting people's time).
Posted by: Greg | October 7, 2008 10:42 AM
Here here!
We should make this happy couple be present at the first such union ceremony, just to record the sound Mrs Bird (or is it Codding now?) makes when when one burly bear is told of his other that He "may now kiss the bride".
Posted by: katie | October 7, 2008 10:43 AM
I love how in the original article, they both had been previously married. It's their second marriage they're bitching about folks.
I'm a little confused about how they're defending the sanctity of marriage then...
Posted by: Ferin | October 7, 2008 10:47 AM
LOL I can't wait to see what comes of letting a bunch of people put what they want on their license.
"I now pronounce you ...big daddy and- ...I'm not saying that in city hall!"
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 7, 2008 10:47 AM
http://www.engrish.com//wp-content/uploads/2008/08/hand-grenade.jpg
Posted by: Ploon | October 7, 2008 10:56 AM
She is kinda hot though, in that typical American painted-face/nipped-tucked-body kind of way. You betcha! Doggoneit?
Posted by: MH | October 7, 2008 11:01 AM
So instead of "bride" and "groom", can people write "dom" and "sub", or "pitcher" and "catcher"??
Posted by: 2-D Man | October 7, 2008 11:06 AM
If I ever get married in California, I might just fill myself out as the 'I'm not saying that in city hall factorial'.Posted by: Erica | October 7, 2008 11:07 AM
and here I was all happy for California having some balls - eerr whatever. :P I think Californians should petition for party "A" and "B" again. Really I think the state should just have civil unions, not just for homosexual, but heterosexual too. No state marriage, leave that to churches.
Posted by: St. Bastard | October 7, 2008 11:08 AM
"Couples filling out the license will now have the option of declaring themselves bride and groom, bride and bride or groom and groom. They can also leave the space blank. The new forms will be available in county offices in November."
Sounds like everyone wins to me.
Posted by: the petey | October 7, 2008 11:13 AM
They need to pur ticky boxes on the application
Name Party 1:________________________
( )Bride ( )Groom ( )Spouse
Name Party 2:________________________
( )Bride ( )Groom ( )Spouse
Posted by: dbe | October 7, 2008 11:16 AM
Who wants to bet on how long it takes the original couple to complain about this perfectly reasonable compromise?
Posted by: ajay | October 7, 2008 11:18 AM
Owlmirror: others that come to mind are
PROTOSTOMES / DEUTEROSTOMES
A LITTLE BIT COUNTRY / A LITTLE BIT ROCK AND ROLL
ALLEGRO / PENSEROSO
SAURISCHIAN / ORNITHISCHIAN
ROMANTIC / CLASSICAL
WITH US / WITH THE TERRORISTS
Posted by: Cerberus | October 7, 2008 11:24 AM
Sigh. Looks like intersex and genderqueer got thrown by the wayside again.
Hopefully the third revision will be like #27's. I suspect the poor bureaucrat in charge of the wording won't be happy with all the unnecessary changes, especially when Party A and Party B was so perfect for a civil marriage form.
Hopefully us Californians can give these whiny straights another reason to cry come November, though it'd almost be worth it to see them win just to see the look on their faces when the patient judge explains that due to the definition of suspect class, they've just invalidated all marriage.
Posted by: Monado in Toronto | October 7, 2008 11:28 AM
My favourite washroom signs were in a company where I worked in the 1980s. In the R&D department, there were two washrooms for about 14 guys and one gal. She didn't like them using "her" washroom, so some enterprising souls rearranged the letters, including a little judicious cutting up, and produced
FLIDS and WEE-NA.
I knew as soon as I saw it that I was going to like the place.
Posted by: Leo B. | October 7, 2008 11:29 AM
It's a win-win. If there was a group of proponents of prop. 8 who was incensed by the "party A/party B" wording, it is now appeased.
Posted by: Kim | October 7, 2008 11:33 AM
PZ, your acting like an ass now. They left the places blank, so that everybody can fill in what they want to be called. As a lesbian, I do not want to be party A either. And for those that would like gender neutral, that is not a problem, as you fill in the spaces at the form yourself.
Posted by: jj | October 7, 2008 11:34 AM
Well it may not matter in the long run if Prop 8 passes in CA
- Vote NO!
Posted by: Nicole TWN | October 7, 2008 11:38 AM
Owlmirror: I wish to bear your children.
Also, how about:
TASTES GREAT / LESS FILLING
FLOOR WAX / DESSERT TOPPING
P / NP
X / NOT (X)
USE OTHER BATHROOM -> /
Posted by: Your Name's Not Bruce? | October 7, 2008 11:39 AM
I just wish that those who are so afraid of gay marriage "hurting" heterosexual marriage would explain exactly how this was possible. I don't think they can because I don't think it does.
Unless of course they mean that it displeases their god and could result in smiting or plagues of boils, and, their god having such poor aim that the innocent are targeted along with the "guilty",(think "universal flood")then yeah, I get it completely.
Posted by: Alverant | October 7, 2008 11:42 AM
Your Name's Not Bruce? #6
The main argument I've read claiming that gay marriage hurts heterosexual marriage is that gay marriage is a counterfeit marriage which devaluates "real" marriages. Sort of like how counterfeit money hurts real money. Of course since a "real" marriage is never defined or fixed, the argument falls flat.
Posted by: Michelle | October 7, 2008 11:43 AM
Box checking sounds pretty good to me. It'll solve every problem.
Though the problem itself seems like a big idiocy if you ask me. So you were called a party. SO WHAT? It's legal talk and it was very decent. Get over it. You too, Kim.
Posted by: Bouncing Bosons | October 7, 2008 11:45 AM
I guess it's kind of a win-win, but I still feel like the court time and changing the forms is a waste of time and money. Seriously, so you can but whatever you want before your name now? I just fail to see how this is substantially different than Party A/B... couldn't they have just written (bride) or (groom) after their names on the blanks provided next to A and B and saved the taxpayers some money?
Or maybe there was an argument as to who should be A and who should be B. I can picture that: "I dunno honey, you really look more like a 'B' to me..."
Posted by: tsg | October 7, 2008 11:54 AM
I suggest they save some time and fill them out "Future Ex-Husband" and "Future Ex-Wife".
Posted by: llewelly | October 7, 2008 11:56 AM
Owlmirror, #15, quoting from http://web.archive.org/web/20040213000819/www.chaparraltree.com/raq/rename.shtml
CARBON | SILICON
Now wait a minute here. Carbon and silicon are in the same column of the periodic table. They have the same number of valence electrons. And as a result they have numerous similar chemical properties. They are not opposites at all!
Posted by: MikeM | October 7, 2008 12:05 PM
A guy dropped by our house the other day to urge us to vote yes on 8 (the bigotted proposal to halt gay marriages in California). He wanted to let me know that he was one of my neighbors; lived just a couple blocks away.
I wanted to say, "Oh, Hell, there goes the neighborhood.", but instead, I was polite. Told him I'd rather not answer his questions.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that if I was gay, I'd complete the form by using the terms "Queen A" and "Queen B".
When I actually DID get married back in 1991 (still married, too!), I promptly lost the marriage license (the ceremonial, pretty one, that you can hang on your wall). I have no idea where it went. I think one of the waiters tossed it, partly due to a lack of English reading skills.
Oh well. Just not that big a deal.
I still can't figure out the harm of putting in whatever terms you want for those fields on the form. Bride & Groom? Het A and Het B? Winkin' & Blinkin'? Who cares?
I think now people will just be more creative about what they want to call themselves for the last 18 minutes of their single lives.
But I'm still glad I don't have to look at that picture of that couple any more. Gawd, that was getting old.
Posted by: Lau | October 7, 2008 12:09 PM
Of course, there is a perfectly lovely way in which the existence of gay marriage changes the institution of marriage. It's one step away from the patriarchal passing of women and property (er, sorry - redundant there) from one man to another, and towards marriage as a commitment between two loving adults to become each other's family. Though I could see how a fundie might think that reconception was a danger to their own union.
As for the decision, sounds like a good compromise and a waste of the court's time. But that only makes sense, since the original complainants sound like a waste of oxygen.
Posted by: Tim Fuller | October 7, 2008 12:11 PM
It'll piss off the fundies because they don't want choice for anything. This seems like a huge victory for the gehs.
Enjoy.
Posted by: PlainJane | October 7, 2008 12:23 PM
llewelly @ 41
It probably means carbon-based versus silicon-based life forms. Like, you know, a horta.
Posted by: Bouncing Bosons | October 7, 2008 12:28 PM
I guess both forms are better than the one we used when my wife and I got married this summer. It's blanks?
MAN : _____________
WOMAN : ___________
It just reeks of fundies trying to push their norms on everyone else. Stupid backward Ohio. At least here in Maryland things are (slightly) more progressive.
Posted by: Brad D | October 7, 2008 12:31 PM
More alternatives for bathrooms and licenses (Owlmirror #15):
Hal / Mother
Facehugger / Host
Marvin / Deep Thought
QWERTY / DVORAK
Ionic / Covalent
Posted by: Tim Fuller | October 7, 2008 12:34 PM
It'll piss off the fundies because they don't want choice for anything. This seems like a huge victory for the gehs.
Enjoy.
Posted by: pixelfish | October 7, 2008 12:36 PM
My bf and I have taken to referring to each other as Party A and Party B since hearing about this little debacle.
I think the fill-in-the-blanks forms were an okay compromise. Thing is, those two kids in Sac didn't get what they really wanted which was labelling of everybody down to gender roles. What they got was a realistic compromise that would allow gays to put groom and groom, or bride and bride, if'n they wanted. (I personally don't like the words Bride and Groom, because I've known too many people getting married for the first time who become wholly fixated on that day, and it's a DAY long. Out of your whole life. But people turn into twits over those words.)
Posted by: Steve Fisher | October 7, 2008 12:37 PM
I wouldn't say this couple actually won anything.The solution the state came up with now makes same sex marriages even more obvious...as in groom-groom and bride- bride. I'm suprised this couple doesn't object to signing a license with such same sex enabling terms and start crying for a license that only has terms that don't offend their religious sensibilities.
Posted by: pixelfish | October 7, 2008 12:38 PM
My bf and I have taken to referring to each other as Party A and Party B since hearing about this little debacle.
I think the fill-in-the-blanks forms were an okay compromise. Thing is, those two kids in Sac didn't get what they really wanted which was labelling of everybody down to gender roles. What they got was a realistic compromise that would allow gays to put groom and groom, or bride and bride, if'n they wanted. (I personally don't like the words Bride and Groom, because I've known too many people getting married for the first time who become wholly fixated on that day, and it's a DAY long. Out of your whole life. But people turn into twits over those words.)
Posted by: Quiet Desperation | October 7, 2008 12:52 PM
(light bulb!)
So gay marriage is like a sub prime loan! I see! :)
More form suggestions:
Strange/Charmed
Matter/Antimatter
Pitcher/Catcher
+1/-1
Real/Imaginary
Posted by: Geoffrey of Ballard | October 7, 2008 12:57 PM
Name Party 1:________________________
( ) Tab ( ) Slot
Name Party 2:________________________
( ) Tab ( ) Slot
Posted by: JimB | October 7, 2008 1:03 PM
Damn. I was gonna say that silicon life forms are Teh Evil.
At least until you mind meld with them and find out it's just a single mom protecting her kids.
But PlainJane beat me to it. So I won't.
Posted by: tsg | October 7, 2008 1:13 PM
It's been said before, but I'll say it again:
If these idiots were really about the "sanctity of marriage", they'd be opposing divorce.
Posted by: Interrobang | October 7, 2008 1:18 PM
I really have to echo the sentiments of a lot of the posters here. Until these bozos can actually come up with a genuine reason why same-sex marriage hurts opposite-sex marriage -- from their own mouths -- I'm going to continue to point and laugh at them. I may do so even afterward, but it'll be for a different reason.
Math is to numerology as Linguistics/Grammar is to...
Gematria. Glad to help.
Posted by: cactusren | October 7, 2008 2:01 PM
My favorite bathroom signs are in the White Dog Cafe in Philadelphia: Pointers/Setters.
I agree with many of the other comments here--while this particular couple was being petulant, the end result seems to be a fair system. Time to move on, and make sure Prop 8 gets shot down.
Posted by: Qwerty | October 7, 2008 2:03 PM
"Rachel Bird can call herself a bride (she could all along, of course), but so can the biggest, butchest, bristly-bearded gay leatherman with a biker mustache...and he should be able to get state recognition of his status as a bride."
OMG, next we'll have two gay men fighting over who gets to be the bride.
Posted by: Tulse | October 7, 2008 2:05 PM
You mean the two divorced people who started this whole kerfluffle? Or the various divorced/adulterous/secretly gay conservative politicians and commentators who go on about same-sex marriage?
Consistency has never been a strong point of the Religious Right.
Put me down for a horta remark as well. (Gotta love all the old-school ST:TOS fans here!)
Posted by: tsg | October 7, 2008 2:10 PM
Far be it from me to let the obvious go un-pointed out.
NO KILL I
Posted by: Cactus Wren | October 7, 2008 2:13 PM
I'M A MAC / I'M A PC
Posted by: tsg | October 7, 2008 2:13 PM
Oh, and I forgot the obligatory
"I'm a doctor, not a bricklayer!"
Posted by: Quiet Desperation | October 7, 2008 2:16 PM
Ponder: Can two of my multiple personalities get married now?
Posted by: Ian | October 7, 2008 2:21 PM
Well, it depends whether you're looking at it from the point of view of a chemist or a biologist. This is a biology blog, so I would say that it fits the pattern.
Posted by: Kobra | October 7, 2008 2:29 PM
How the hell did they win? Did they annoy the judge into agreement with their whining?
Posted by: Noadi | October 7, 2008 2:33 PM
All these science lovers and no one yet mentions putting the chromosomes as the label?
XX|XY (or of course XX|XX or XY|XY)
Posted by: Karey | October 7, 2008 2:42 PM
I think its dumb the state caved in to these phonies because calling yourself Party A and Party B does not harm or 'label' anyone anything. What a monument to pettiness this is. But its probably for the best right now, considering Prop 8 is on the ballot and how close to the election we are. If that gets defeated it will change the direction all gay rights progress takes in the country so its important not to antagonize the fundies right into passing Prop 8. Let them win the battle, they'll just lose the war.
Posted by: Ilya | October 7, 2008 2:44 PM
pipette/pipette tip
coffee/tea
coke/pepsi
itchy/scratchy
key/lock
mess-maker/mess-cleaner
Posted by: MikeM | October 7, 2008 2:44 PM
pixelfish @49: It ain't Sacramento. If you look on a map, it's only about 20 miles from 24th and J to Granite Bay, but in effect, these two areas are about as far from each other as Georgia and San Francisco.
Roseville isn't Sacramento. Heck, Roseville isn't even the same county.
I'm from south of Broadway, and proud of it.
Posted by: Brad D | October 7, 2008 2:45 PM
I can't hold back any more... The most compelling evidence I have ever seen for alternate, Silicon based life forms was an episode of Fantasy Island. It was so bad that I think it was what pushed poor Herve Villachaise (Tattoo) over the edge.
In my defense: I was a kid, I didn't have enough of a vote to change the channel, I was just glad to be up past my bedtime. Oh, the humanity! That and Love Boat. Of all the useless crap to (involuntarily) waste long term memory on.
Posted by: Chris | October 7, 2008 2:59 PM
I can't wait to be a blushing bride to my girlfriend's groomliness.
If I lived in CA.
I hope she doesn't see this.
Posted by: tsg | October 7, 2008 2:59 PM
outie/innie
Posted by: Psycho Atheist | October 7, 2008 3:01 PM
The option of bride/groom, bride/bride etc seems perfectly reasonable to me. I can't be the only one though that is thinking that the Coddings didn't actually have that result in mind when they started their little tantrum.
What's the betting that they considered the terms 'bride' and 'groom' biblically acceptable and will be quietly seething that same sex couples can now utilise these labels?
Posted by: Mojave66 | October 7, 2008 3:02 PM
You know, I just got married to my partner B of 16 years. It was our fifth wrangling of some kind of legalized partnership. As far as I'm concerned, I'm already married, but the state begged to differ, and I rather like being able to cover my beloved partner's insurance needs.
If we can make all the wingnuts whine about insignificant little shit like this, we'd all be much better off. They can declare victory in their misty-mystical little brains, and we can concentrate on the REAL problems.
Posted by: KristinmH | October 7, 2008 3:08 PM
Elvis/The Colonel
Scully/Mulder
...and I can't believe no one suggested
Pitcher/Catcher
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 7, 2008 3:15 PM
PS: I am nearly entirely certain that no one has ever said that to me before, ever....
PPS: I am not Raphael Carter.
I like this one a bunch.
Some more that come to mind:
SACRED / PROFANE
SPRING / FALL
OVERWORKED / UNDERPAID
DECIDUOUS / CONIFER
SUGAR / SALT
COOK / CRITIC
SHINY / HAPPY
SLOB / SNOB
FREAK / GEEK
RATIONALIST / EMPIRICIST
BACTRIAN / DROMEDARY
SALAMANDER / NEWT
or maybe even a few that are just bare punctuation...
Posted by: tsg | October 7, 2008 3:21 PM
1/0
Posted by: Rey Fox | October 7, 2008 3:24 PM
OVER THE ROLL / UNDER THE ROLL
LOVE THE GRATEFUL DEAD / HATE THE GRATEFUL DEAD
K-SELECTED / r-SELECTED
STOIC / EPICUREAN
SHIT / SHINOLA
Why this one has never been on bathroom doors is beyond me:
PENIS / VAGINA
Posted by: Jadehawk | October 7, 2008 3:25 PM
I agree that the solution is actually pretty good... but what a waste of tax-money, to have all the forms changed (again), and the legal proceedings...
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 7, 2008 3:38 PM
(Having too much fun with this...)
Transcendent / Ineffable
Nature / Nurture
Tight End / Wide Receiver
Even / Odd
Phantasmagorical / Mundane
Posted by: Zach | October 7, 2008 4:04 PM
I really don't care if they get to be called bride and groom. In fact, if they want to be "bride and groom," I think we may as well let them.
I don't think many gay couples will mind being a bride and groom. In fact, it actually sounds kind of nice.
Posted by: Zach | October 7, 2008 4:09 PM
I really don't care if they get to be called bride and groom. In fact, if they want to be "bride and groom," I think we may as well let them.
I don't think many gay couples will mind being a bride and groom. In fact, it actually sounds kind of nice.
Posted by: The Petey | October 7, 2008 4:22 PM
how about:
Liza-Fan / Cher-Fan
Posted by: Wehaf | October 7, 2008 4:31 PM
@noadi #66 - maybe that's because a surprisingly large fraction of the population is neither? XXY (Klinefelter's) in particular is very common (1 in 500 males). In addition, a lot of people who are genetically female identify as male, and vice-versa.
Just for fun, more 47 aneuplodies:
XYY - occurence 1 in 1000 males
Trisomy X - 1 in 1000 females
Monosomy X - 1 in 2500 females
Posted by: The Petey | October 7, 2008 4:31 PM
How about
8==D / (_*_)
Posted by: WRMartin | October 7, 2008 4:32 PM
Lenny/Squiggy
AC/DC
Bait/Fly
Tap/Bottled
Whiskey/Whisky
Dumptruck/Tube
PZ Myers/Bill Donohue
Boss/Husband
Posted by: Tulse | October 7, 2008 4:47 PM
Raw/Cooked
Posted by: Desert Rat | October 7, 2008 4:56 PM
These pair suggestions are cracking me up.
Angiosperm/Gymnosperm
Monocot/Dicot
WIMP/MACHO
Boson/Fermion
Spin up/Spin down
Heads/Tails
N/P
Anode/Cathode
The possibilities are endless!
Posted by: Brendan White | October 7, 2008 4:57 PM
I know its not quite what you were after when you said you wanted to see a Bear bride but its the best I could come up with on short notice.
Posted by: Mrs. Peach | October 7, 2008 5:06 PM
Yeah, the whole thing's kinda stupid. What I don't understand is why they wanted to be called "bride" and "groom" rather than "wife" and "husband." You're only a bride or groom for the day. Those are party names, for the ceremony. Next day, you're not a bride anymore... heh,heh, well except for Bride of Shrek.... But for everyone else, you're just a wife or husband.
Well, maybe that was intentional, just preparing for the next divorce since they're, you know... traditionalists. Good luck to them trying to get their other legal documents to refer to them as bride and groom.
Posted by: Sultmhoor | October 7, 2008 5:14 PM
R-enantiomer/S-enantiomer
I thought this was a biology blog? ;o)
Posted by: Richard Gadsden | October 7, 2008 5:27 PM
Quark / Lepton
Fermion / Boson (and take the lock off the boson door)
Quark-Lepton plasma / electroweak separation
QCD / QED
Posted by: Kel | October 7, 2008 5:28 PM
All that over a word... it's pretty silly in the end.
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 7, 2008 5:47 PM
Shaken / Stirred
Dazed / Confused
Wired / Inspired
Twirling / Whirling
Knowledge / Power
Comedy / Tragedy
Euclidean / non-Euclidean
Action / Adventure
Austere / Rococo
Lepton / Quark
Eye-candy / Smörgåsbord
Posted by: Aksunai | October 7, 2008 6:52 PM
While we're on the subject of marriage, my partner and I will be getting married next year. We've been racking our brains to think of some meaningful ceremonies/rituals and readings that aren't religious... any ideas from the atheistically married out there?
Posted by: Rob in Memphis | October 7, 2008 7:10 PM
And for music lovers getting married there's always...
WAS / (NOT WAS)
Posted by: mandydax | October 7, 2008 7:14 PM
Gatekeeper / Keymaster
DNA / RNA
Master / Servant
Yes it is! / No it isn't!
Life / Liberty (will name their child Happiness)
Euclidean / Cartesian
Army / Navy
Purple / Violet
Fall / Autumn
Photon / Photon (QM geeks, can I get a shout out for an anti-particle joke?!)
Posted by: Buford | October 7, 2008 7:24 PM
Back to basics:
Left / Right
Up / Down
Front / Back
Past / Future
Left handed / Right handed / Ambidextrous