Wednesday, September 17, 2008

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.

6 comments:

Sili said...

:applaus:

Spidergrackle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Spidergrackle said...

Oops: didn't do that right.

I had heard of this melee,
But frankly hadn't given the
Attention that I frankly think
It truly now deserves.

A couple of remarried dolts
Are trying to fling moral bolts
Against the people they mistakenly
Accuse of being perves.

They cry, in umbrage high and pure
That you ain't proper iff'n you're
Of the same sex: let's not demure
And claim it's something other.

If "groom" and "wife" defines you, well
Go right ahead: that’s really swell.
But if you want to push that on
My friends, well just don’t bother.

A marriage, in the modern world
Ain’t just betwixt a boy and girl
The human race has risen out
Of eras bronze and stone:

A and B are just as due
A pledge of troth as she and you,
And frankly, fuck you if you want
Gays doomed to be alone.

Grackle's Nest

Mona Albano said...

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.

makita said...

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.

Metro said...

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?