Jeez, who'd have believed it? It's almost tempting to split up with my girlfriend of 10 years, move to Massachusetts, turn gay and marry some guy just for the vengeful satisfaction of degrading their marriages.

Almost tempting.

*headdesk*

Seriously???

Hey, I'm going to sue the province of Ontario to let my husband and me be signed under "Snuggymuffin" and "Kittybooboo". That's how we think of each other*, so shouldn't it be signed into law?

*No, not really.

hmmm,... so they feel victimized because the form does not impose the same titles on all couples, and let's them choose what they want to call themselves... what a confused couple. I bet they feel really bad for themselves...

the best part is what Party A's dad wrote to her:

""If ever there was a time for the people of the United States to stand up and let their voices be heard – this is that time.""

WOW! this man has his priorities straight. Hating Gay people is the one issue in history that America needs to stand up for. Not freedom, or democracy, or war, or poverty, or human rights,... But only to hate on gay people, we all need to stand up as a nation.

Deep and classy.

I have no words that are anywhere near PG to express how angry those two twits (and their supporters) make me.

I think that to be so upset over paperwork is absurd. Same sex couples have every right to be together and this just makes things simpler. Personally, people who have such an issue with this need to grow up.

Ah yes, we all must go back to denigrating masses of people and keeping them from their legal right to choose whether or not to marry because 2 crazy, entitled "traditionalists" NEED to be called a bride and groom.

I don't know, I kind of think that if I'm getting married, I'll have a few more important things on my to-do list than bitch and moan over how a legal document refers to me. So long as the liquor store gets my name and order right, I think I'll be okay. ;)

Setting aside that this is the dumbest complaint ever, can't the form just read "Party A / Bride" and "Party B / Groom" or, as one other commenter on the Sac Bee article suggested, "Bride/Groom" and "Bride/Groom" and the couple simply circles what's applicable? I mean, I understand it's not ideal and still adhering to a gender binary, but at least it would shut this complaint the fuck down.

(Actually, probably not. People like this will always see the liberation of others as an affront to themselves. I love when "equality" = "oppression" to those with privilege. Assholes.)

Bah. I can see where she is coming from, and, for her, it may truly be a personal issue, but I see wanting to stick with the traditional wording as something mired in patriarchy and religion. The words "bride" and "groom" have so many connotations associated with them in both religion and the patriarchal culture that they can truly be damaging. I know part of my issues surrounding getting married include the expectations surrounding those loaded words. In a religious context, they do have specific meanings, as in a societal context. The new wording is neutral, and, as I see it, free of such religious connotations and open to redefining the roles in a union rather than promoting age old patriarchal conceptions of marriage and gender roles within marriage that many fight against. I firmly believe that it's a sad thing unions recognized by the state and those promoted by religion are called the same thing, but that does not mean that they function the same. The two should be completely separate entities with the state abstaining from any religious meaning in unions. If a couple wants to define themselves as "bride" and "groom", for personal reasons, for religions reasons, for any other reasons, then by all means, but do not force those words on others who see them as having a religious connotations.

They do know those terms mean owner/master & property right? I'm always shocked anyone wants to be called a wife or bride

(The meaning of bride is cook, the meaning of wife is property; the meaning of groom is householder, the meaning of husband is master.)

This is the part that gets me:

"Bird and Codding have refused to complete the new forms, a stand that has already cost them. Because their marriage is not registered with the state, Bird cannot sign up for Codding's medical benefits or legally take his name. They are now exploring their options, she said."

In other words, they are putting themselves in legally the same position that homosexual couples are already in, and they somehow still don't have any empathy for them. How can somebody SEE how tricky it is and still not ACTUALLY SEE how tricky it is?!?

By the way, I'm new, hi. :-)

If I ever get married, even as a heterosexual, I don't want those terms applied to me. Maybe some people like them, but the owner/property, dominant/submissive themes still exist in husband and wife, or bride and groom. I want no part of it, and I certainly don't want it legally applied to me.

Jebus, have neither of them ever read a legal document before? They ALL use intentionally impersonal language. So if being called "Person A" and "Person B" robs them of...I dunno, I guess their gender, sexuality, God-given straight-ness, something like that, why aren't they protesting all legal jargon because it robs us of our humanity? 'Cause I dunno about you, but I've been referenced impersonally in court documents and I'm still pretty human...

The pains some people will take...

This was my favorite part:

"For now, they are busy with their family (she has two children from a previous marriage and he has three) and starting their new life."

Meaning they were divorced, right? A proud hetero tradition indeed.

Oh for fuck's sake. If they are so concerned about being addressed as "bride" and "groom" on their stupid official state document, then they can just go to Vegas. There they will each get their own form to fill out, one for the bride and one for the groom. Yes, in those words, so they can unbunch their damn panties. Sheesh.

Somebodyoranother, nowhere do I find etymological support for your assertion that wife means property. Wife originally meant woman, adult female, and came to mean female spouse much later.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wife

Additionally, the derivation of bride from the same root as broth or brew is not universally agreed upon.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bride

Nor does groom mean master. Groom is derived from either a root "guma" meaning adult male, or "grommet", meaning servant.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/groom

When some feminists, like Mary Daly, go around spouting spurious etymologies for words, it just makes the rest of us look silly. Please back up your assertions.

So still being able to marry but being offended by something has the same impact as two gay people not being able to marry? What are they, retarded? I suggest they move out of my beautiful state to alabama where they'll never have to worry their privileged little heads about it.

I dunno, people. It sounds like this poor couple is really hurting. Maybe we should call them the waaaaaambulance.

Legal documents are supposed to be very general and use the most neutral, non-emotional terms available. That doesn't stop them from using the terms they want in the ceremony. And if they'd like something to display, many churches/religious organizations will provide their own marriage certificates that are made for that purpose.

This all stems from the same problem the same-sex marriage debate often runs into. There are two different aspects to marriage: the legal, government contract and the religious or ceremonial part. Churches can deny whoever they want and or use whatever language they choose, but the government has an obligation to offer the same legal rights to everyone.

Technically they aren't totally gender neutral - at least not in Alameda County. When we went to get ours a couple of weeks ago, it was only Party B that had a line for "Maiden Name."

We, and couple next to us, had put the soon-to-be husband as Party B - we were all very happy to screw with the pervasive gender norms on the not-quite neutral license.

"We just feel that our rights have been violated," she said.

I almost crapped my pants when I read this, and I was sitting in a public speaking class. That's just too funny.

"Legal documents are supposed to be very general and use the most neutral, non-emotional terms available. That doesn't stop them from using the terms they want in the ceremony. And if they'd like something to display, many churches/religious organizations will provide their own marriage certificates that are made for that purpose."

As a major distributor to the system; they have a descent argument in extra printing costs.

Lol...a gender-neutral form violates their rights? I'm a STRAIGHT WOMAN who hates the term bride...am I somehow violating their rights by saying that?

What always amuses me about "traditional" people is that I'm pretty sure if they had lied in, say, 1855, they'd be totally pro-slavery. A few decades later and they're hating on the women's suffrage movement. We owe a lot more to modern, secular values that treat people well than we do to "tradition"...

"Meaning they were divorced, right? A proud hetero tradition indeed."

How hypocritical of you.

"What always amuses me about "traditional" people is that I'm pretty sure if they had lied in, say, 1855, they'd be totally pro-slavery."

The tools have changed but don't believe you are free. In 1855 they the traditional people were probably slaves to elites too.

As I said over at Polymorphous Perversity, this couple is in the exact same position as a same-sex couple who want to be "Bride"/"Bride" or "Groom"/"Groom." Or, as ShifterCat's tongue-in-cheek comment points out, couples who are attached to any other label. I certainly know folks who would love to have marriage license say "Owner"/"Pet" or "Dominant"/"Submissive" or "Mistress"/"Slave" - but it ain't gonna happen.

"'Meaning they were divorced, right? A proud hetero tradition indeed.'

How hypocritical of you."
Don't you mean, how hypocritical of the couple? Since lonehiker was indeed pointing out the hypocrisy in demanding one marriage tradition while ignoring another...

I can't count the number of times that in pointing out hypocrisy, I've been labeled a hypocrite. Geez, people.

Aw, that's okay, honey. You can just order your "Bride" panties off theknot.com and it'll make you just as happy.

Seriously, do they expect to have two forms??? Like, SEPARATE, BUT EQUAL? Please!!

People can get mad about whatever they want, but they can't expect to be taken seriously over every little thing. A gender-neutral form is fair, and you can call yourself whatever you want to. No one is going to say "you may now kiss person A" (unless you want them to), so I wish these people would stop taking up the time we need for real issues...you know...like Prop 8 in California...

It's interesting that they are both divorced and are remarrying. It wasn't so long ago that being divorced was very much frowned upon and carried a definite social stigma, with many churches refusing to remarry divorced people. Some still will not. Thus these church-going traditionalists are taking advantage of changes in attitudes toward divorce, but protest about change which occurs outside of their own little world to cater for the needs of others. 100% hypocrites all right.

The entitlement in their words makes me feel all kinds of hostile. Ugh.

I think the people whose rights were being violated were the people who weren't allowed to get married in the first place. You don't have a "right" to be identified as bride and groom on a freaking form.

"Technically they aren't totally gender neutral - at least not in Alameda County. When we went to get ours a couple of weeks ago, it was only Party B that had a line for 'Maiden Name.'"

See? Problem solved, the forms are fine. B is for bride and A is for..Agroom.

Awesome.

bifemmefatale, I have found a few scraps of etymological evidence on which somebodyoranother might have based her conclusion.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=bride&searchmode=none

According to the online etymology dictionary, the word bride has roots in the Teutonic word
"bru", which means " to cook". It has roots in many other words as well, of course, so it might be stretching things to say that this is the word's exact derivative. The Gothic term for groom is bruþsfaþs, which literally means "bride's lord", thus the "master" interpretation.
As a Lit major, I can tell you that Dictionary.com is notoriously inaccurate with its etymology. I'm not sure how good the online etymology dictionary is either, but since it's an etymological resource specifically, I trust it more. OED online is my bible, but it's only available to me while I am on campus...far too expensive for me to subscribe to it at home. I will, however, check on this next week when I'm back at school My curiosity has gotten the better of me for sure!
Just pointing out where somebodyoranother's statement isn't completely baseless. I don't think he/she is being quite as rash as Mary Daly in this case. :-)

I'm a little jealous of gay couples calling their significant others as their life partner.That is sooo beautiful and shows a deeper level of commitment than wife/husband.
I for one refer to my husband as my "old man":)

stephanie's right, they're not *really* gender-neutral. On everything after the initial form, they still say bride and groom - the application is the only piece of paperwork they reprinted. Also, I was "Party B" (I lost the coin toss) and I was the only one who got sent a name-change form. >:(

So still being able to marry but being offended by something has the same impact as two gay people not being able to marry? What are they, retarded? I suggest they move out of my beautiful state to alabama where they'll never have to worry their privileged little heads about it.

As a not-exactly-proud but current queer and trans Alabama resident, I'd like to state for the record that we neither want nor need any more bigots.

Also, I'm not one for pointing to the log in someone's eye, but your cavalier use of ableist language and regional prejudice rather handily cancels out your support of queer rights.

"See? Problem solved, the forms are fine. B is for bride and A is for..Agroom."

It's still going to define the genders somewhere. Because I might like the letter B more than my wife and choose that letter. Than the state will have us a little confused on who wears the pants. :P I think it's just silly going by the letters. Even in the case of same sex couples they would require to be asking of gender.

oops......I mean Then the state.......

GOD FORBID they have to make a slight sacrifice. No, really, it's a travesty. I say we change it back to "bride" and "groom," allowing hetero couples to make no sacrifices whatsoever, and keep gay marriage illegal, thereby putting the entire burden of hatred and inequality on the shoulders of GLBT people. I'm totally down for treating these people as second-class citizens, if it means that heterosexuals can still use "bride" and "groom." What in the world was California thinking?!?

You can find any number of people with strange illogical beliefs about various topics. There is no reason to think anything important is going to change because of these two nutjobs. How is this noteworthy?

"GOD FORBID they have to make a slight sacrifice."

In Canada the people were for gay marriage but then the courts took our definition too. lol

So, the country is drifting unusually right and at a fast paste. I wonder if that's one of the factors.

pace..........OMG

As a married, heterosexual proponent of marriage equality, residing in California, I have to say that my spouse and I may be thinking divorce should Proposition 8 pass. I think it will infringe on our first ammendment rights to be forced to have my relationship legally defined by what are basically religiously based definitions. There really is no other reason for discriminating against homosexuals.

The crazy part is, the domestic partnership laws do not make room for a heterosexual couple either. So what is our choice going to be? Belong to a discriminatory institution - or decline to have our relationship legally recognized and accept the consequences that that will have? With children to protect, it is not an easy decision - and I am alarmed that it is one we may have to make.

I really fail to see how my religious freedom to disagree with this extreme brand of Christianity will be protected should Proposition 8 pass.