California, post Supreme Court decision (that discrimination based on gender is discrimination), now uses marriage licenses that ask for the names of “Party A” and “Party B” to the marriage. As someone who still doesn’t feel like the word “wife” applies to her, I think this is pretty awesome. It is, however, causing waves.
I understand where the desire to take this stand comes from (being against gay marriage), however, is it really so bad to use gender-neutral language? Did “Bride” or “Groom” come first before and why? Doesn’t this provide people who are not in the men-are-better-than-women or the women-should-be-treated-with-more-respect-than-men camps with more freedom? Once again, how does this affect your [heteronormative] marriage/relationship/wedding?
UPDATE: I also don’t think that they invalidated their license or that the State was correct in denying its validity:
7 responses so far ↓
1 Shelly // Sep 17, 2008 at 1:44 pm
I don’t even know what to say. I think I have to agree with PZ Meyers and say it’s an utterly absurd whine.
2 Craig // Sep 17, 2008 at 2:05 pm
It’s silly for them to get in a tizzy, but perhaps almost as silly of the state to make it a big deal. However, it is very nice to have a government erring on the side of inclusivity and gender neutrality for once.
3 wren // Sep 23, 2008 at 3:40 pm
It’s just like Tevye rattling on about the value of tradition. Tradition has sentimental value. Tradition has power over those it marginalizes.
Marriage is a tradition. As far as I’m concerned, it can stay in churches as a religious ceremony and whoever wants to make a legal union can make a legal union with all the govt perks. Dare to dream, I know.
4 xJane // Sep 23, 2008 at 4:52 pm
I recently saw a comic that I cannot for the life of me find online right now that was titled “Traditional Marriage” and there was the classic bride, groom, and preacher. The preacher was saying, “I now pronounce you husband and property.” Two major arguments against the “marriage-is-tradition-and-therefore-good” claim: just because it is tradition doesn’t make it good and traditions are frequently changed. It seems to me like a red herring to even make the claim.
5 wren // Sep 23, 2008 at 8:44 pm
I’ve been having long email discussions with an lds friend in CA who is actively garnering signatures for prop 8. She threw out the “marriage is a sacred union” line as well as claims of lawsuits by gays which would force churches to marry them. Is there some big problem in CA with lawsuits of that nature or is this what I suspect - a smokescreen for discrimination, a red herring.
Unfortunately read yesterday about an lds member from my home state having his membership threatened for actively opposing prop 8. link
What’s the viability of this prop? Any polls there recently?
6 xJane // Sep 23, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Looks like just enough people are against it: 54% in August. That appears to be the most recent poll. Now, if only those people vote…
7 xJane // Sep 25, 2008 at 7:40 am
wren: this podcast (near the end) discusses the poll results in light of the prior proposition to ban gay marriage (which passed, I believe)—a major reason people don’t like it is the “new” wording that removes a right.
Leave a Comment