Here comes the bride


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

  1. Owlmirror says

    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.

    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.

  2. asad says

    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.

  3. Hanes says

    “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.”

  4. asad says

    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.

  5. Tulse says

    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.

  6. Your Name's Not Bruce? says

    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.

  7. Tulse says

    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.

  8. Tim says

    If it’s by mutual consent, and they’re of age, it’s not my business, but please, spare me the details.

  9. Adviser Moppet says

    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.

  10. CSBSH says

    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.

  11. Timothy Wood says

    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.

  12. chgo_liz says

    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”.

  13. Quiet_Desperation says

    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?

  14. Owlmirror says

    But my favorite example of gender subversion is an installation I did at
    Minicon 31, a science fiction convention here in Minneapolis. I noticed that the public suites had
    two single-user bathrooms each. Now, in the U.S. you hardly ever see two bathrooms next to each
    other that aren’t labelled “men” and “women,” even if they’re identical in
    every respect and can only accomodate one person at a time. Somehow, these bathrooms had been
    missed: their doors were blank. I decided to remedy this oversight–but not with anything as
    mundane as MEN / WOMEN. Instead I made up signs with other sets of
    opposites:

    CARBON	 | 	SILICON
    OXYGEN	 | 	METHANE
    OVIPAROUS	 | 	VIVIPAROUS

    […]
    As the con progressed and people got the idea, I let the signs get stranger:

    OFFICERS	 | 	GENTLEMEN
    #1	 | 	#2
    MACS	 | 	UNIX

    And on Sunday–a traditional day of exhaustion at cons–I treated the bleary fans to my favorite bit of surrealism:

    GENDER	 | 	NUMBER

    I have over two dozen more signs ready for the next Minicon. If I ran them all here it would spoil the jokes, but I will give my new favorite:

    THOSE WHO DIVIDE PEOPLE INTO TWO KINDS	 | 	THOSE WHO DON'T

    ( from here: http://web.archive.org/web/20040213000819/www.chaparraltree.com/raq/rename.shtml )

    (pity Sb won’t let commenters post tables. oh well.)

  15. divalent says

    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.

  16. says

    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).

  17. Greg says

    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”.

  18. katie says

    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…

  19. Ferin says

    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!”

  20. Ploon says

    She is kinda hot though, in that typical American painted-face/nipped-tucked-body kind of way. You betcha! Doggoneit?

  21. MH says

    So instead of “bride” and “groom”, can people write “dom” and “sub”, or “pitcher” and “catcher”??

  22. 2-D Man says

    “I now pronounce you …big daddy and- …I’m not saying that in city hall!”

    If I ever get married in California, I might just fill myself out as the ‘I’m not saying that in city hall factorial’.

  23. says

    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.

  24. says

    “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.

  25. the petey says

    They need to pur ticky boxes on the application

    Name Party 1:________________________
    ( )Bride ( )Groom ( )Spouse

    Name Party 2:________________________
    ( )Bride ( )Groom ( )Spouse

  26. dbe says

    Who wants to bet on how long it takes the original couple to complain about this perfectly reasonable compromise?

  27. ajay says

    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

  28. Cerberus says

    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.

  29. says

    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.

  30. Leo B. says

    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.

  31. Kim says

    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.

  32. Nicole TWN says

    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 -> / <- USE OTHER BATHROOM

  33. Your Name's Not Bruce? says

    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.

  34. Alverant says

    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.

  35. Michelle says

    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.

  36. Bouncing Bosons says

    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…”

  37. tsg says

    I suggest they save some time and fill them out “Future Ex-Husband” and “Future Ex-Wife”.

  38. MikeM says

    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.

  39. Lau says

    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.

  40. Tim Fuller says

    It’ll piss off the fundies because they don’t want choice for anything. This seems like a huge victory for the gehs.

    Enjoy.

  41. PlainJane says

    llewelly @ 41

    It probably means carbon-based versus silicon-based life forms. Like, you know, a horta.

  42. Bouncing Bosons says

    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.

  43. Brad D says

    More alternatives for bathrooms and licenses (Owlmirror #15):

    Hal / Mother
    Facehugger / Host
    Marvin / Deep Thought
    QWERTY / DVORAK
    Ionic / Covalent

  44. Tim Fuller says

    It’ll piss off the fundies because they don’t want choice for anything. This seems like a huge victory for the gehs.

    Enjoy.

  45. says

    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.)

  46. Steve Fisher says

    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.

  47. says

    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.)

  48. Quiet Desperation says

    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.

    (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

  49. Geoffrey of Ballard says

    Name Party 1:________________________
    ( ) Tab ( ) Slot

    Name Party 2:________________________
    ( ) Tab ( ) Slot

  50. JimB says

    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.

  51. tsg says

    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.

  52. Interrobang says

    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.

  53. cactusren says

    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.

  54. Qwerty says

    “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.

  55. Tulse says

    If these idiots were really about the “sanctity of marriage”, they’d be opposing divorce.

    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.

    Carbon and silicon […] are not opposites at all!

    Put me down for a horta remark as well. (Gotta love all the old-school ST:TOS fans here!)

  56. tsg says

    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.

    Far be it from me to let the obvious go un-pointed out.

    Put me down for a horta remark as well. (Gotta love all the old-school ST:TOS fans here!)

    NO KILL I

  57. Ian says

    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!

    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.

  58. says

    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)

  59. Karey says

    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.

  60. Ilya says

    pipette/pipette tip
    coffee/tea
    coke/pepsi
    itchy/scratchy
    key/lock
    mess-maker/mess-cleaner

  61. MikeM says

    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.

  62. Brad D says

    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.

  63. Chris says

    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.

  64. says

    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?

  65. Mojave66 says

    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.

  66. Owlmirror says

    Owlmirror: I wish to bear your children.

    ...

    PS: I am nearly entirely certain that no one has ever said that to me before, ever….

    PPS: I am not Raphael Carter.

    More form suggestions:
    Strange/Charmed

    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…

    ! / ?
    # / *
    ♯ / ♭
    ∴ / ∵
    
  67. Rey Fox says

    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

  68. Jadehawk says

    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…

  69. Owlmirror says

    (Having too much fun with this…)

    Transcendent / Ineffable
    Nature / Nurture
    Tight End / Wide Receiver
    Even / Odd
    Phantasmagorical / Mundane

  70. Zach says

    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.

  71. Zach says

    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.

  72. Wehaf says

    @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

  73. WRMartin says

    Lenny/Squiggy
    AC/DC
    Bait/Fly
    Tap/Bottled
    Whiskey/Whisky
    Dumptruck/Tube
    PZ Myers/Bill Donohue
    Boss/Husband

  74. Desert Rat says

    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!

  75. Brendan White says

    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.

  76. Mrs. Peach says

    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.

  77. Richard Gadsden says

    Quark / Lepton
    Fermion / Boson (and take the lock off the boson door)
    Quark-Lepton plasma / electroweak separation
    QCD / QED

  78. Owlmirror says

    Shaken / Stirred
    Dazed / Confused
    Wired / Inspired
    Twirling / Whirling
    Knowledge / Power
    Comedy / Tragedy
    Euclidean / non-Euclidean
    Action / Adventure
    Austere / Rococo
    Lepton / Quark
    Eye-candy / Smörgåsbord

  79. Aksunai says

    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?

  80. says

    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?!)

  81. Buford says

    Back to basics:

    Left / Right
    Up / Down
    Front / Back
    Past / Future
    Left handed / Right handed / Ambidextrous

  82. Carlie says

    Forgive me if I’ve missed it reading through, but no one’s done
    Seat left up/Seat left down
    yet?

    Coffee/Tea
    Star Wars/Star Trek
    Squeeze from middle/Squeeze from end
    Wax on/Wax off
    Chocolate in my peanut butter/Peanut butter in my chocolate
    One Bourbon/One Scotch (one beer can use either)
    Give you up/Let you down
    Right round/Like a record player
    Alexander Hamilton/Aaron Burr

  83. Owlmirror says

    Scylla / Charybdis
    April Showers / May Flowers
    Rock / Hard Place
    Lost / Found
    Devil / Deep Blue Sea
    Too Old to Rock and Roll / Too Young to Die
    Gotta Sing / Gotta Dance
    Tragically Hip / Just Plain Tragic
    Heart / Mind
    Eye of the Tiger / Hungry Like the Wolf
    Left Brain / Right Brain
    Feathers / Lead

  84. travc says

    HA! My SO and I got our marriage license earlier this month, so party A and party B is forever enshrined for us!

    (I’m a he and she is a she, but still like party A and B better for a legal document.)

  85. Desert Son says

    To-MAY-to / To-MAH-to
    Velocity / Position (Heisenberg’s Restrooms)
    Mountain High Enough / Valley Low Enough
    Yankees / Red Sox (Plenty of sports rivalries to mine)
    Morning Person / Night Owl
    DC / Marvel
    Broadway / Hollywood
    She Won’t Do It / Her Sister Will
    Highway to Hell / Stairway to Heaven
    High Road / Low Road
    Acid / Base
    Fred Astaire / Ginger Rogers
    Xs / Os
    Fiction / Non-fiction

    No kings,

    Robert

  86. Desert Son says

    How about . . .

    Newton / Leibniz (does this one work?)
    Summer Games / Winter Games
    Farsighted / MYOPIC (should be in large type)
    Dogs / Cats
    Lo-Pan / Egg Shen

    or perhaps

    Wing Kong / Chang Sing
    Leaded / Unleaded
    Arctic / Antarctic
    Sinister / Dexter
    Electric / Acoustic
    Private / Public (this could have interesting results)
    Sober / Sloshed
    At Rest / In Motion
    Fusion / Fission
    Hostess / Little Debbie
    Beatles / Stones

    No kings,

    Robert

  87. Robert Byers says

    The state here is imposing a new idea/value on the people without their consent. That same sex marriages etc are right and to overthrow the historic moral belief in only men and women marrying each other. at least this couple has done what they could for their identity as man and wife.
    Defining who may get married is from God and the historic right of all nations and cultures. its a great right of civilization from high to the lowest tribe.
    This right of a people do decide their own marriage laws is beyond small judges deciding that sexual identity is not a good reason to stop marriages between folks.
    This will not stand.

    Homosexuality is seen as a repulsive, dysfunctional, and absurd state of conduct.
    To be called gay, all those words, is still in every playground a meaning of contempt.
    To allow gay marriage is to reject all men and women, save gays, identity in relation to the opposite sex. Its profound to every person in its implications.
    Any suffering of homosexuality as a legitamate alternative to normal is a rejection of the identity of man and women here and in the past.
    Its just a error of thinking, however profound, and can be overthrown by the individual.
    Its inpractical to make it illegal although it should and was.

    I suspect Aids and other problems in the world are from God lessening his mercy.
    To christians in America homosexuality is more wrong because its railed against in scripture.

    The homosexual agenda has been a great evil against God, human identity, and collective soul. This ugly thing hurts True men and women and the gays themselves.
    Its a worthy thing to fight and defeat in its march for acceptance.

  88. says

    Defining who may get married is from God and the historic right of all nations and cultures.

    If it’s from God, then how come marriage is present in all cultures regardless of belief systems? If it’s the historic right of all nations and cultures, then surely nations and cultures can change it to what suits their society best.

    Remember, throughout history the most popular form of marriage was one man many women. Social constructs change in the society they are in. Robert, you are a tool.

  89. Carlie says

    Little bit country/Little bit rock-n-roll
    Stewart/Colbert
    blogger/troller
    ketchup/mustard
    cheesy fries/poutine

  90. Jarandhel says

    Just to further combine the ST:TOS references and the opposites listings:

    Doctor | Miracle Worker

  91. Ichthyic says

    The state here is imposing a new idea/value on the people without their consent.

    Byers, as usual, has it exactly backwards.

    The state WAS imposing an old idea/value on the “people” without their consent.

    The State Supreme Court fixed that.

    I expect their decision, being based on pretty sound reasoning, will be narrowly upheld. I also expect that the morons like yourself pushing for actually amending the State Constitution to be rejected, and not just with this tiny little thing, but firmly and gradually shoved to the margins, where you belong.

  92. Mojave66 says

    Gosh darn, thank you, Robert Byers.

    I realize now that standing by my partner of 16 years when she was unemployed and I fed and nurtured her was repulsive, dysfunctional, and absurd state of conduct. When she held me, hurting and scared after two major surgeries, that was repulsive, dysfunctional, and absurd state of conduct.

    I see the light now. God, ’cause he’s a narrow-minded bastard of a five-year old who demands recognition at every moment, and says that taking care of another human being through sickness and health, bad times and good, is repulsive, dysfunctional, and absurd state of conduct.

    I see the light. It’s a pretty dim, feeble light, but hey, we gotta take Kindergarten God as he is, eh?

  93. Dennis N says

    Defining who may get married is from God

    Yeahh… there’s this separation thing that we like to keep between church and state. It’s one of those amen.. amendnent.. amendment things? One of those things.

  94. Ichthyic says

    I see the light. It’s a pretty dim, feeble light, but hey, we gotta take Kindergarten God as he is, eh?

    Next they teach you how to color inside the lines!

    *joy*

    :p

  95. Azkyroth says

    To allow gay marriage is to reject all men and women, save gays, identity in relation to the opposite sex. Its profound to every person in its implications.
    Any suffering of homosexuality as a legitamate alternative to normal is a rejection of the identity of man and women here and in the past.

    Your moral and ideological forebears said the same thing about women’s suffrage. Any comments on how that worked out?

  96. Ichthyic says

    Your moral and ideological forebears said the same thing about women’s suffrage.

    excellent point.

    Still, my prediction will be that the comparison, while perfectly valid, will be entirely ignored by our resident Black Knight. That, or he will construct an entirely ludicrous misogynist argument of some kind (women should be in kitchens, etc.), that he really doesn’t believe, but will happily trot out so he at least appears to be consistent at a place where he doesn’t respect any of the posters to begin with.

    I wonder what the world would be like if people didn’t mostly epically fail to be students of history?

  97. Patricia says

    Marijuana Bill Byers – You stupid fuck. How does anyone else’s marriage harm mine? You disgusting old prat of a pervert from the 1970’s.
    Shit Byers, go home, stop dropping your pen, and go diddle yourself in the garage.

  98. Ichthyic says

    ah, yes. NOW you’ve got a worm on your hook, Patricia.

    ;)

    …and I’m sure he’ll be back before the week is up.

  99. says

    I wonder why Robert Byers even bothers to post here. Being an agent of intolerance on a progressive blog is hardly going to have a receptive audience. Likewise being a godbot on an atheist blog will gain a similar reception. And being a creationist on an evolution blog is never going to go down well. He doesn’t have a single quality about him that would endear him to anyone on this blog. Maybe he likes to be mocked because he can feel persecuted therefore be as one with the J-man.

  100. clinteas says

    //Homosexuality is seen as a repulsive, dysfunctional, and absurd state of conduct.//

    LOL
    Your fellow christian priests and ministers seem to disagree with you there,Byers.They seem to find it quite ok,actually.

  101. Ichthyic says

    I wonder why Robert Byers even bothers to post here.

    -cry for help?

    -thinks he is “winning”?

    -thinks he is showing off to his “friends”?

    -wife divorced him and he misses being yelled at and belittled for his obvious stupidity?

    -bugfuck nuts?

    -just plain lonely?

    none of which are mutually exclusive.

    things it simply cannot be:

    -he thinks he is converting people to his PoV

    -he honestly thinks he is actually debating.

  102. Donovan says

    Grrr. If I didn’t already hate California enough. People like Bird and Codding disgust me. When I got married, I cared about two things: Is this legally binding (can we visit each other in a hospital, get insurance, buy a house), and do I have the support of my friends and family (because it does mean a lot). These slime mold wannabes got scraped off some dog owners shoe and show up claiming they have rights on what other people need to call them? We should have a vote on what we call them instead of bride and groom.

  103. says

    asad @2,

    …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.

    And it’s not a big deal for any normal people. But far from the Talibangelicals having “won”, this solution is likely to infuriate them far more than the original, single gender-neutral description would have done. Why, the new formula explicitly makes b/g equivalent to b/b and g/g. Even as the ink dries in the page, their marriages are being Destroyed By Teh Gay!

    But shame on all you people suggesting frivolous alternative pairings. This is no laughing matter; clarity over traditional gender roles is important. When there is confusion over this sort of thing, society as we know it inevitably breaks down. For my own part I shall try to ensure that Ireland’s government enact legislation to require that public toilet doors be clearly labelled in the First National Language: Mná and Fir, respectively; or, to save space, a simple M and F will suffice.

  104. says

    Not knowing Gaelic (my loss!), but having enjoyed Mrs. Tilton’s sense of humor for a couple of years now, I had a suspicion about the possibility of “fir” being cognate to Latin “vir”. A brief session with the google confirmed not only my hunch, but–simultaneously–Mrs. Tilton’s Discordian wit.

    Thank you for what will undoubtedly be the intellectual high point of my morning, Mrs. T!

  105. Selcaby says

    Gay marriage doesn’t hurt heterosexual marriage. Dull bureaucratic language hurts heterosexual marriage.

    I’m glad someone got the Party A/Party B business changed, although I think a polite letter-writing campaign would have been a more appropriate tactic than going to court. Such a prosaic word choice showed a lack of a sense of occasion, and that can only lead to more people getting married in church.

  106. bezoar says

    HEY, I’m a Biker and have a handlebar moustache. Let’s not mistake the Village people moustache for a Biker moustache. Know of what you speak. Proudly hetero and super macho Biker son of a bitch, god dammit!

  107. Tulse says

    More musical pairings:

    Rock and roll all night / Party every day
    Stay (trouble) / Go (double)
    Check out any time you like / Leave

    And if we going to do ST:TOS McCoyisms, we’ll be here till doomsday, but here are some of my faves:

    Doctor / Escalator
    Doctor / Bricklayer

  108. says

    thalarctos @124,

    coming from you, the title “Discordian” has made my day, no, week.

    You’re absolutely right about fir being cognate with vir. It’s the plural, the singular being fear. The singular of mná is, obviously, bean. (BTW, though fear and bean resemble English words visually, they don’t sound like the words they resemble.)

    A few years back there was a dustup at Queen’s University Belfast. Signs reading Fir and Mná were hung on some toilet doors, and some students complained. One wag on a usenet group I used to haunt commented, “Do they not understand the Irish for ‘catholic’ and ‘protestant’?”.

  109. Desert Son says

    Tulse at #129 posted:

    Stay (trouble) / Go (double)

    Excellent one!

    More in a Clash vein:

    Fought the Law / Law Won (I know, I know, not original to The Clash)
    Need New Clothes / Need Somewhere to Stay
    Death / Glory

    And other assorted:

    Roth / Hagar
    Puts the X in Sex / Licks it Up
    Over the Hills / Far Away
    Comfortably Numb / Wanna Be Sedated
    Phantom Fears / Freewill

    No kings,

    Robert

  110. Tulse says

    Although reluctant to actually admit to familiarity with their oeuvre:

    Cold as ice / Hot blooded

  111. tsg says

    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?

    My wife and I got married in Vermont in the backyard of the Bed and Breakfast where we had the reception by the Justice of the Peace in a ceremony that was only slightly more complex than

    “Do you?”
    “Yes”
    “Do you?”
    “Yes”
    “You’re done.”

    For us, the ceremony was incidental to the real reason for us being there: the party afterward.

  112. Owlmirror says

    Reductionism / Holism
    Forest / Trees
    Chaotic / Emergent
    Figure / Ground
    Inconsistent / Incomplete
    Recursion / Self-reference
    Prelude / Fugue
    Tortoise / Achilles

    ( Bit of a Hofstadter theme there… )

    Twilight Zone / Outer Limits
    Canon / Fanfic
    Stick / Bucket

    ( Now, this is just getting silly… )

    Cake / Death
    Hamster / Elderberries
    Just Resting / Pining for the Fjords

  113. Owlmirror says

    ( Now, this is just getting silly… )

    What do you mean “getting”?

    Well, more silly. Silly-er.

  114. Benjamin Allen says

    I am not going to lie, I find this hilarious. Allow me to deal with him

    to overthrow the historic moral belief in only men and women marrying each other. at least this couple has done what they could for their identity as man and wife.

    Let’s deal with this first. How is the idea that only men and women should marry a moral belief? I am not seeing a utilitarian calculation or a kantian analysis of maxims here. What this is is a historical artifact. Nothing more. This line of reasoning can be used to prop up laws against interracial marriage and even marriage for the purposes of romantic love. Historical marriage in judeo-christian cultures was an economic arrangement, primarily having to do with merging familial assets and assuring inheritance to legitimate heirs. Marriage has changed and we now do it for the sole purpose of recognizing committed romantic relationships and providing economic support and stability for ourselves, our partners, and potential children which may or may not be related to us. There is no logical reason why gay people such as myself should be excluded from this, and indeed the constitution of the state of California supports this position through its equal protection clause. Amending the state constitution will not change that ruling. Denying gay people the right to marry under the present ruling would also deny the right of marriage to straight people. Congrats Robert for shooting yourself in the foot.

    Defining who may get married is from God and the historic right of all nations and cultures. its a great right of civilization from high to the lowest tribe.

    I hate to break it to you, but your religion does not have a monopoly on marriage, nor does your religion even agree. There are many churches and even entire religions which reject your point of view, who are you to impose your religious dogma on them? Hell, who are you to impose your religious dogma on atheists?

    I suppose you also thing that women should keep their head covered, not speak in church, and submit in all manners possible to their husband. Spousal Rape being a crime I suppose was an imposition on your god-given traditional values? What about the 13th amendment which prohibits your selling your kids into slavery?

    To be called gay, all those words, is still in every playground a meaning of contempt.

    And we should legitimize this bigotry which leads to roughly ten percent of gay youth to suffer from PTSD with state discrimination? What is wrong with you?

    To allow gay marriage is to reject all men and women, save gays, identity in relation to the opposite sex. Its profound to every person in its implications.
    Any suffering of homosexuality as a legitamate alternative to normal is a rejection of the identity of man and women here and in the past.

    First of all you need to go back to grammar school and learn how to properly construct a sentence in english.

    I am a gay man. I drink milk from the carton, leave the toilet seat up, and look for snakes in swamps (the fact that I study snakes and frogs not withstanding) I have good and meaningful relations with both men and women, I simply am sexually and emotionally attracted to men. How does this deny your relationships with other people or diminish them in any way? Because a few legal forms are gender-neutral? Is that the threshold for denial that you are operating on?

    Also: gender is not and never has been a dichotomous category. Gender being the set of masculine or feminine behaviors that are used to define whether someone is a man, woman, or in between. It has little to do with sex (which thanks to intersexed people is not even black and white all the time) and exists on a continuum. Some men are more feminine than others, some women are more tom-boyish.

    You are setting up a false dichotomy.

    Its just a error of thinking, however profound, and can be overthrown by the individual.

    There is no evidence that homosexuality can be changed, and indeed every study ever done that was reputable has concluded the exact opposite. Biologist that I am, I can go into the evolution of homosexuality and its neural basis. But suffice to say, it is a normal part of human variation and is not an error.

    I suspect Aids and other problems in the world are from God lessening his mercy.

    You have a pretty twisted god. To create homosexuality (even if it is a sin, God created sin in the first place knowing full well the consequences due to omniscience) and then punish people not only with hell, but an early death for being born with it.

    Even if your god did exist, I would rather spend an eternity being tortured in hell than spend one second in prostration before such a magnificently cruel being.

    This ugly thing hurts True men and women and the gays themselves.

    The only thing that hurts about being gay is the existence of people like you.

    ~Benjamin Allen

  115. Owlmirror says

    Speaking of silliness, there’s nothing quite as silly as pseudosciency sexism.

    So:

    Genetics / Genomics

    Oh, and a whole bunch of … well, you can probably figure out what I had in mind:

    Pig / Frog
    Statler / Waldorf
    Beaker / Honeydew
    Snuffleupagus / Sweetums
    Gonzo / Animal
    Sam Eagle / Swedish Chef
    Bert / Ernie

    (moving right along…)

    Laverne / Shirley
    Schlemiel / Schlimazel
    Brontosaurus / Apatosaurus
    Amphioxus / Lancelet
    Boot / Trunk
    Hood / Bonnet
    Curb / Kerb
    Pavement / Sidewalk

  116. Desert Son says

    Tulse @ #132 posted:

    Nice one, Robert!

    Thanks!

    This is a fun game. A few more following Owlmirror’s recent lead:

    Lorry / Truck
    Lift / Elevator
    Aluminium / Aluminum
    Chips / Fries
    Crisps / Chips
    Jumper / Sweater
    Mobile / Cell Phone
    Braces / Suspenders
    Suspenders / Garters
    Waistcoat / Vest
    Anorak / Parka
    Tin / Can
    Biscuit / Cookie

    No kings,

    Robert