Arrrrrrrrrr! »« Giant Naked Englishman Restored To Life… if you know what I mean…

PARTY!!!!! (A)

PZ reports on a story from the Sacramento Bee, about the trials and tribulations of that most persecuted of minorities, the heterosexual christian.

The state of California has new, gender-neutral marriage licenses, which list “Party A” and “Party B” instead of the previously-used “Bride” and “Groom”. This, of course, infringes on the rights of Rachel Bird and Gideon Codding (who wish the state to recognize them as “bride and groom”). The fact that they can, in fact, get married, does not deter them. Bird is not eligible for coverage under Codding’s medical benefits, nor can she legally take his name; a situation they share with gay couples in the majority of states. They could simply sign the form, or travel to another state and legally be married as Bride and Groom, options they do not share with gay couples in the majority of states. The article does not specify whether the couple opposes gay marriage, nor whether they feel marriage is a sacred institution and a lifelong commitment (it does state that this is the second marriage for each of them). They just want the state to call them Bride and Groom, they say.

I think it is a reasonable request, if and only if other couples can be Bride and Bride, or Groom and Groom, or Person A and Person B, dependent only on the couple’s own desires. Failing that, the current gender-neutral language does not deny any right to one group that it does not also deny to another, and (more importantly) the “right” that is denied does not in any way impede their ability to actually get married. The choice is theirs. Again, a situation they do not share with gay couples in the majority of states.

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!)

Our Fellowship (Abundant Life)
Says marriage joins a Man and Wife
Forever as a couple, in Our Lord’s Most Holy View
As is, this form disparages
The sanctity of marriages—
(We ought to know—for each of us, it’s marriage number two)

We cannot enter wedded bliss
With such a godless form as this
A wedding contract, clearly, is between a bride and groom!
This stupid governmental form
Makes abnormality the norm—
A sign of the Apocalypse! A harbinger of doom!

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!

*
*
*

There are some who, even if they tried,
Could not—as yet—be Bride and Bride;
And could not even (yet) be Party A and Party B;
But still I hope that soon, some day
That any couple—straight or gay
Is given equal treatment here… from C to shining C.

Comments

  1. says

    Oops: didn’t do that right.I had heard of this melee,But frankly hadn’t given theAttention that I frankly thinkIt truly now deserves.A couple of remarried doltsAre trying to fling moral boltsAgainst the people they mistakenlyAccuse of being perves.They cry, in umbrage high and pureThat you ain’t proper iff’n you’reOf the same sex: let’s not demureAnd claim it’s something other.If “groom” and “wife” defines you, wellGo right ahead: that’s really swell.But if you want to push that onMy friends, well just don’t bother.A marriage, in the modern worldAin’t just betwixt a boy and girlThe human race has risen outOf eras bronze and stone:A and B are just as dueA pledge of troth as she and you,And frankly, fuck you if you wantGays doomed to be alone.Grackle’s Nest

  2. says

    Thirty years ago, an acquaintance of mine caused a fuss at the registry office because she didn’t want to sign a statement saying that she was a “spinster”–that being the technical term in Ontario at the time for unmarried women. But she didn’t sue anyone. I think that now they have to state that they are not married to anyone else.

  3. says

    When I got married (more than 7 years ago!!) our officiant was quick to point out that referring to heterosexual couple as man and wife was sexist. It is either “man and woman” or “husband and wife.” Why would the woman suddenly be referred to as a “wife,” while the man gets to stay a “man?” I appreciated his comment, and since then whenever I read or hear “man and wife” I think about that. Equal partners, remember?As so if people want to be “husband and husband,” or “wife and wife,” or “man and man,” or “woman and woman,” “or man and woman” that’s fine by me. As long as it’s on equal terms. Call me nitpicky.

  4. says

    I think there ought to be a statement with a series of check-boxes somewhere saying:”… that:() Party A() Husband() Wife() Man() Woman() Other (please specify)doth here consent to marry () Party B() Husband() Wife() Man() Woman() Other (please specify)D’you think having a choice would satisfy them?Hey–if they’re so “traditionalist”–do you think she got married in white?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>