Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Uh Oh Previous entry: Please help shut down this right wing lie

Won’t someone please think of the cake toppers?

PZ found what’s sure to be this week’s finest choadery.  This California couple Rachel Bird and Gideon Codding are such vile bigots that they’re boycotting marriage because gay people get to have it now.

Those are the terms that have replaced “bride” and “groom” on the state’s new gender-neutral marriage licenses. And to Bird and Codding, that is unacceptable.

“We are traditionalists – we just want to be called bride and groom,” said Bird, 25, who works part time for her father’s church. “Those words have been used for generations and now they just changed them.”

In May, after the California State Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage legal, the courts mandated state officials to provide gender-neutral licenses and other marriage forms. “Bride” and “groom” became “Party A” and “Party B.”


Really, I sure the state of California gives a flying fuck.  I bet the Governator lays in bed awake at night, tossing and turning, because a couple of hateful idiots won’t get a marriage license.  That this pitiful straight couple isn’t married is reason enough to dissolve the thousands of marriages that have been created in the wake of California legalizing gay marriage.  That’s fair, right?

If you’re guessing that these people, who are inflicting this on themselves, are going to whine about how they’re victims, then you know your fundamentalist Christians!

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…..

“Those who support (same-sex marriage) say it has no impact on heterosexuals,” said Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute. “This debunks that argument.”

Irony is completely lost on these people.  Oh boo hoo, they don’t get the benefits of marriage because they aren’t married.  Perhaps if they thought about that for a millisecond, they’d realize that’s why it’s necessary to legalize gay marriage.  This is dumber than the McCain campaign hiding behind the word “choice” in their press release about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy.  Words like “traditionalist” can’t hide the reality of this—-this couple thinks so little of gay people that they think their “right” to use gendered terms on what is basically a glorified version of any other state document supersedes the real rights of gay people to marry for love like straight people get to do.  And they’re foolish enough to believe they’ll win people’s sympathies, because you know, they’re straight, and so we have to like them despite the stink of unwashed assholery. 

The couple is claiming this is “personal”, and not religious, presumably because they’ve inherited the wingnut love of pathological lying and/or their disdain for reality-based evidence gathering.  Of course there’s some two bit pastor behind this, the parent of one of the wannabe spouses. 

Bird’s father, Doug Bird, pastor of Roseville’s Abundant Life Fellowship, said he is urging couples not to sign the new marriage forms, and that he is getting some support from congregants and colleagues at local churches.

“I would encourage you to refuse to sign marriage licenses with ‘Party A’ and ‘Party B,’ ” he wrote in a letter that he sent to them. “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.”

Sit on your asses when it comes to war, for all he cares.  Turn your backs on the poor and the suffering.  What mortgage crisis?  What health care crisis?  What AIDS epidemic?  These are but minor issues compared to the most pressing problem that faces our nation—-gay people are eating wedding cake as we speak. And that’s after the wedding cake has been been all goofed up because two cake toppers were split apart and rebuilt so that it looks like they’re groom/groom or bride/bride. 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 07:11 PM • (149) Comments

I notice by visiting the church’s site that there are a lot of sermons on “The Pyramid of Success.”  These are very corporate minded Christians.  Maybe they are just trying to avoid the marriage penalty of filing a joint return.

Comment #1: G Porgey  on  09/18  at  07:59 PM

Somebody call the Waaaaaaaaaaaaaahmbulance!

But seriously, your last paragraph says it better than I could.  Down with Prop. 8 (which is currently polling at 55% oppose/38% support, woohoo)!

Comment #2: Loomer  on  09/18  at  08:04 PM

I got married four months ago and I honestly do not remember what the lines on the marriage liscense said.  It affects nothing about your life or your wedding and there is no reason to even care what it says. These two would still be a bride and groom whatever the paper said because WORDS HAVE MEANINGS and women and men, when they marry, are brides and grooms whatever the paper says.

If you don’t love each other enough to put up with signing a less-than-your-perfect-ideal document in order to be married to eachother, then you should probably not be getting married at all.

And if you hate gay people enough to throw a hissy fit like this, I secretly hope a terrible fate befalls you.

Comment #3: GumbyAnne  on  09/18  at  08:10 PM

Deities save us from Health & Wealth Christianity . . .

Comment #4: idiosynchronic  on  09/18  at  08:14 PM

I’d be happy to call them “bride” and “groom” if it’ll shut them the hell up.

Comment #5: Chet  on  09/18  at  08:15 PM

You’ll notice that the happy couple are themselves violators of the sanctity of marriage, having each been married previously. But they’re Christians so it’s okay for them to lie and be hypocrites.

I can’t believe newsprint was wasted on these people.

Comment #6: Ross  on  09/18  at  08:15 PM

Then they’d just come up with some other way to claim that they can’t get married because gay people can, Chet.

Comment #7: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/18  at  08:16 PM

they’re boycotting marriage because gay people get to have it now

Well, OK, but don’t have sex unless you’re ready to burn in Hell forever.

Comment #8: Quaker in a Basement  on  09/18  at  08:20 PM

Shorter GumbyAnne: “Sit down and shut up because your whining is interrupting my beautiful hetero life.”

Comment #9: idiosynchronic  on  09/18  at  08:21 PM

If you’re pissed at these morons, help us out in CA and give some $ to the No On 8/Equality for All campaign.  We’re getting outraised 3/2 by the wingnuts.  The polls are looking strong for the good guys, but you just know there will be a horrendous ad blitz funded by the haters.

Comment #10: Loneoak  on  09/18  at  08:22 PM

I’m pretty sure the previous lines were “husband” and “wife”, not “bride” and “groom.”  So they’re fucking wrong in the first place.

Comment #11: Loneoak  on  09/18  at  08:27 PM

Yeah, I was just gonna say, I hope these poor babies aren’t having sex without being married!

Comment #12: Jenny Dreadful  on  09/18  at  08:29 PM

Shorter idiosynchronic: “I skim other people’s comments.”

Comment #13: mr_subjunctive  on  09/18  at  08:30 PM

“Those who support (same-sex marriage) say it has no impact on heterosexuals,” said Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute. “This debunks that argument.”

There are very few times when a judge on the bench can appropriately use the phrase “You’ve.  Got.  To be.  Fucking.  Kidding me.”

If this argument ever appears in court, in any form, I wish the presiding judge to know that that would be one of those times.

Comment #14: Kyso K  on  09/18  at  08:30 PM

If you’re pissed at these morons, help us out in CA and give some $ to the No On 8/Equality for All campaign.  We’re getting outraised 3/2 by the wingnuts.  The polls are looking strong for the good guys, but you just know there will be a horrendous ad blitz funded by the haters.

I moved out of CA about 5 years ago but you reminded me how much I hated election season there. So many scare ads where you can’t tell what the issue is, which side is which, or who is supporting what.

I didn’t so much mind the hours of research it took to decipher the voter information guide but the TV ads drove me insane.

Comment #15: vaux-rien  on  09/18  at  08:34 PM

That’s so funny!  I was just an attendant at a gay wedding where the two gentlemen getting married wore shirts that said “Party A” and “Party B” on the front, with a giant, rainbow-colored “=” sign on the back.  This is like the crazy asshole bigot version of that! How cute of them. 

Also:  Two-men and two-women cake toppers of all sorts of race-combinations are flying off the shelves here in San Francisco.

Comment #16: roro80  on  09/18  at  08:43 PM

This is really funny seeing as I spent a chunk of my day today doing half-assed research and supplying bountiful moral support for my coworker who just married his partner in California and is now trying to use the CA marriage license to get said partner onto his health insurance policy.  In the wake of a few influential NY court cases and Gov. Paterson’s recent directive for state agencies to start adjusting policy and red tape to gear towards honoring gay marriage licenses from other jurisdictions, it looks like they’ll *gasp* actually get to reap the benefits of marriage

Of course, all of the above assumes that a given couple has the resources, connections, and cultural capital to know what your rights are and to bend HR departments, insurance companies, etc. to your will.

But still, boo fricking hoo, da widdwe fundee-wundees don’t like da paypuhwuhk…  *plays world’s tiniest violin”

Comment #17: The Opoponax  on  09/18  at  08:49 PM

What a charmingly attractive couple. The groom grinning rakishly into the camera because he got to be born with a penis, and the bride smiling with proper doting wifely attention at the groom. I just don’t have the first clue why they’re not touching each other.

Comment #18: junk science  on  09/18  at  08:50 PM

Maybe the form should specify Choad A and Choad B.

Dammit, Amanda, you’ve got me hooked on calling people choads for things like this.  Damn you!

Comment #19: Damian  on  09/18  at  08:50 PM

NO SPECIAL RIGHTS for heterosexuals!

Shorter Choads: Whahhh Wahhhh we aren’t speeeeeshhhull anymore WHahhhh!

Comment #20: Ms Kate  on  09/18  at  08:55 PM

Bird’s father, Doug Bird, pastor of Roseville’s Abundant Life Fellowship, said he is urging couples not to sign the new marriage forms, and that he is getting some support from congregants and colleagues at local churches.

Sounds good to me.  I think Pastor Bird should be encouraged to continue telling his congregants that being legally married and having a religious wedding ceremony are two different things.  Maybe then the fucking clue stick would hit them in the head and they would realize that the state doesn’t give a shit if you made promises to God, Buddha, or the FSM as long as you sign the paperwork.

Comment #21: Mnemosyne  on  09/18  at  09:01 PM

“We are traditionalists”

So you’re going to give your wife’s father a herd of goats before marrying her?  You’re going to forbid your wife from owning property?  You’re going to let the owner of the land you live on have sex with your wife on your wedding night?

Comment #22: Notorious P.A.T.  on  09/18  at  09:06 PM

Bird’s father, Doug Bird, pastor of Roseville’s Abundant Life Fellowship, said he is urging couples not to sign the new marriage forms

Good.  Don’t have children, either.

Comment #23: Notorious P.A.T.  on  09/18  at  09:07 PM

Hey, if they want to be traditionalists, that’s fine.  That means Choad A needs to put together a dowry and Choad B needs to be sold off by her father to Choad A.

After all, that’s tradition.

Comment #24: Damian  on  09/18  at  09:10 PM

Render unto caesar…

Comment #25: paul  on  09/18  at  09:11 PM

Prosperity christians, the latest plague visited upon us from the jeebus hucksters.

This year my city had its first ever pride celebration.  After years of being denied a permit to gather they finally got it and made it happen.  It was a delightful event.  Protestors from neighboring states drove in to stand at the entrance to the park where the celebration was held with their judgmental view of which bible verses mean more than others.  One asshat carried a bullhorn and berated the crowd of people going to the festival.

In talking with the police there I learned something that was interesting.  One of the officers, who claims to know a great deal about the protestors, said this is their job, protesting.  I kind of looked at him quizzically and said that many of the protestors have actually been quite successful dragging a local municipality into court for one reason or another and then collecting a settlement.  He pointed to one guy and said that guy just collected $200k from a city in Virginia.

I have no idea if it’s true but it’s an interesting sidelight, that these self-styled moral warriors are actually making a living standing with a stupid sign in their hands.

Oh, and according to reports (http://www.kcra.com/news/17425959/detail.html) the story went a little bit differently than recounted above:

But the state of California is not recognizing the Codding’s marriage as legal because of a new state law, the Roseville couple said Monday.

The conflict arose when the couple placed the words “bride” and “groom” on their gender-neutral marriage license in place of “Party A” and “Party B.”
“I’m not sure what ‘Party A’ and ‘Party B’ means,” Gideon Codding said. “I want my bride to be my bride, and I want my marriage certificate to reflect that.”
Marriage licenses across the state became gender neutral when California started allowing same-sex marriages in June.
“If nothing else, give us two forms,” Gideon Codding said.
The decision to alter the license, which is a state document, made the Codding’s marriage application incomplete, according to the state.
...
The couple has one year to file a duplicate license as long as they sign under “Party A” and “Party B,” the Placer County Clerk’s Office said.

—-

What assholes.

Comment #26: ice weasel  on  09/18  at  09:12 PM

Furthermore, one wonders what kind of other “traditional” things they support - after all, things like women being any more than property, children being protected from being forced to work, and rights for minorities aren’t “traditional” - I wonder if they’re tradityionalists about those, too?

Their real tradition is being a couple of choads, advised by a choad at a pulpit.

And if I feel the need to call them choads one more time, I’m going to scream.

Comment #27: Damian  on  09/18  at  09:13 PM

I got married four months ago and I honestly do not remember what the lines on the marriage liscense said.

You really should have paid more attention to the “ius primæ noctis” provisions, you know.

Comment #28: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  09/18  at  09:18 PM

I didn’t so much mind the hours of research it took to decipher the voter information guide but the TV ads drove me insane.

I miss the voter guide so much.  No matter how hard I try, I always end up with complete unknowns for Judges here in Chicago.  It sucks so much.  People fight to be first on the list, b/c the first name always wins—along with Irish named candidates.

A DVR might even make TV watchable.

Comment #29: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  09/18  at  09:19 PM

These folks are permitted to have an opinion. Come on folks, progressives are supposed to be tolerant.

Comment #30: Bagley  on  09/18  at  09:22 PM

If it doesn’t say “groom” how will he know who owns whom? Will he know that he has the penis?

Comment #31: Ms Kate  on  09/18  at  09:24 PM

Bagley, their “opinion” is that EVERYBODY in California must have a bride/groom heteronormative marriage license.

That isn’t an opinion - that is dictating the terms of everybody’s life and legally forcing them to be like yours.

Comment #32: Ms Kate  on  09/18  at  09:25 PM

All right, so they can just file a dupe in place of the state document they mutilated, but they won’t?

Y’know, one of the prices of civil disobedience is taking the consequences for breaking the law. Where is their gumption?

Comment #33: paul  on  09/18  at  09:25 PM

People fight to be first on the list, b/c the first name always wins—along with Irish named candidates.

Heh.  I feel guilty because my tactic (especially for offices where you have to pick several choices out of a long list of unknowns - “Choose 6 Of The Following” and the like) is usually to preferentially choose the women, then people with names that sound like they might be minorities.  For instance I’ll pick Lakeesha Johnson or Kuan Yi Tsai over Kevin O’Neill every time.  I know this is a horrible way to vote for people because obviously women and minorities aren’t always best for the job or the most qualified (see also Keyes, Alan, and Palin, Sarah).  But in the absence of ANYTHING else to go on besides name and party affiliation, I feel like it’s better than just picking the first 4 people on the list.

Comment #34: The Opoponax  on  09/18  at  09:29 PM

Shorter GumbyAnne: “Sit down and shut up because your whining is interrupting my beautiful hetero life.”

I am sorry.  I must not have made myself clear at all.  I think that the time is way past due for gay people to have marriage equality.  These Bird and Codding people are both assholes and not very smart.

My beautiful hetero life is not at all threatened by gay marriage.

Comment #35: GumbyAnne  on  09/18  at  09:30 PM

Why can’t she legally take her husband’s name?  That doesn’t make any sense.

(Oh, wait.  She can’t change her name *for free.*  Since they’re not legally married, she’d have to go through the paperwork and fees to change her name.  More damned privilege.)

Comment #36: Lee  on  09/18  at  09:31 PM

From the source article…

“Party A”

“Party B”

This terminology seems to be….wait for it….

“...dictating the terms of everybody’s life and legally forcing them [to accept the terms]...”

Comment #37: Bagley  on  09/18  at  09:33 PM

I have a strange feeling there’s some old forms in a courthouse basement somewhere, and they could just ask…

...but the press would probably be somewhat, slightly, a bit less interested in their terrible plight.

Comment #38: jon  on  09/18  at  09:35 PM

Do you think they’d settle for a form that reads “bigot” and “goon”? Because I’d be willing to give them that one.

Comment #39: Pixelfish  on  09/18  at  09:39 PM

Hm, I wonder if they’re allowed to get divorced if things go sour?  Because not only is that not “traditional”, but divorce paperwork is FULL of gender-neutral legalese like “the party of the first part” and “the party of the second part” and the like. 

This terminology seems to be….wait for it….
“...dictating the terms of everybody’s life and legally forcing them [to accept the terms]...”

Bagley, do you think they’d be as freaked out if they lived in another state without gay marriage, and the paperwork had recently been changed from “bride and groom” to “husband and wife”?  I mean, how DARE the vile and evil gubmit tell me that I’m not a bride, but a wife!1!!!ELEVEN!!!!! 

Do you think people like this boycotted when the local paper switched their style-sheet to be more gender neutral and egalitarian, favoring words like “mail carrier” and “member of congress”, or doing away with Mrs. John Doe as a way to refer to married women?

My point being that “Party A” and “Party B” don’t dictate anything for anyone, while “Bride” and “Groom” either dictate that the form is only to be used for traditional heterosexual marriages or force gay people to squeeze themselves into labels that turn the whole undertaking into a farce.

Seriously, I think someone should do a parody of this where two people refuse to get married after they are all offended because they can’t get a special marriage license that says “Fairie Princesse” and “Grand High Wizard”.  Or, you know, the ridiculously twee titles of your choice.

Comment #40: The Opoponax  on  09/18  at  09:45 PM

“The decision to alter the license, which is a state document, made the Codding’s marriage application incomplete, according to the state.”

Ooh, you do not want to mess with the people who keep these records.  They are seriously hard-core.  Someone I know had their marriage certificate rejected because the officiant had highlighted where they were supposed to sign—they had to take it back to the officiant and the witnesses and get it signed all over again.

Seriously.  Do not fuck with the California Office of Vital Records because you will.  not.  win.

Comment #41: Mnemosyne  on  09/18  at  09:45 PM

I just don’t have the first clue why they’re not touching each other.

She’s probably menstrating.  Remember they’re traditionalists.

Comment #42: ummeli  on  09/18  at  09:46 PM

... a special marriage license that says “Fairie Princesse” and “Grand High Wizard”.

I wish I did that.

Comment #43: Joshua  on  09/18  at  09:48 PM

Bagley, don’t be such a douche. Neutral language is…drumroll…neutral. It doesn’t impose anything on anybody. It’s like how government institutions not mentioning god isn’t the same thing as making you pray.

Comment #44: mothworm  on  09/18  at  09:48 PM

“These folks are permitted to have an opinion. Come on folks, progressives are supposed to be tolerant. “

No one here is advocating that these people’s opinion should be censored (I hope, I too skim comments from time to time).  We also have our opinions about what these folks think, and can ridicule them freely.

Comment #45: anoNY  on  09/18  at  09:50 PM

Well, to be fair we are mocking them for having really stupid opinions. 

But mocking isn’t censoring.

Comment #46: The Opoponax  on  09/18  at  09:53 PM

Wow, now that heteros are willingly depriving themselves of things that they have the right to get but are choosing not to, the shit is really going to hit the fan.

All that hundreds of years of slavery? Watch out, because now, some white people are NOT going to vote just because YOU can and it pisses them off!

77 cents on the dollar? Oh ho, little missy, MEN are refusing to work in clerical jobs, because that would diminish their earning potential!

Segregation? See if somebody swims in the same pool as YOU, darkie!

See? Boycotting works!

Comment #47: serena kitt  on  09/18  at  09:55 PM

Shorter idiosynchronic: “I can’t understand printed English.”

Comment #48: Eric, Rejector of Memez  on  09/18  at  10:02 PM

“Bagley, do you think they’d be as freaked out if they lived in another state without gay marriage, and the paperwork had recently been changed from ‘bride and groom’ to ‘husband and wife’?”

No, I do not think these folks would be upset: “husband” and “wife” are not gender-neutral words.

“‘...‘mail carrier’ and ‘member of congress’....”

These are apt descriptions for employment. This particular argument is verry, very weak.

“...or doing away with Mrs. John Doe as a way to refer to married women?”

Many, many (I think most) adopt [their] husband’s name once married. And newspapers refer to them this way: Hillary Rodam Clinton, for example.

“My point being that “Party A” and “Party B” don’t dictate anything for anyone…”

It is a traditional reference.

“...or force gay people to squeeze themselves into labels that turn the whole undertaking into a farce.”

Gay marriage is a farce, as it every argument in favor of gay marriage.

“Seriously, I think someone should do a parody of this where two people refuse to get married after they are all offended because they can’t get a special marriage license that says ‘Fairie Princesse’ and ‘Grand High Wizard’.”

Your argument here is that this couple—in the parody—is asking for a special privilege: to define their identities on the marriage license…oh, wait is it not the case that the switch to “Party A” and “Party B” began that way?

Comment #49: Bagley  on  09/18  at  10:03 PM

How about Owner and Chattel?

Comment #50: Ms Kate  on  09/18  at  10:04 PM

Ummm, I have a question. If these two choads were so offended by the gender neutral language wedding license in California, why don’t they get married in Nevada or Oregon?

Naaah, because if they did that, they wouldn’t be getting all the attention their whinging is getting them. I wonder if these two hired a publicist to bring attention to their plight.

Comment #51: phinky  on  09/18  at  10:04 PM

This is the greatest travesty since the state woulnd’t process my driver’s license because under “Sex” I wrote “please.”

Or else since the gubmit won’t put “Mikey” on my passport, and insists on “Michael.”  That’s what I want to be called!

Comment #52: Mikey  on  09/18  at  10:07 PM

Ooh, it’s the old “intolerant of my intolerance” gambit.

You tightie-righties need some new tricks.

Comment #53: Jrod  on  09/18  at  10:09 PM

...or doing away with Mrs. John Doe as a way to refer to married women

Show me where Hillary has ever been referred to as “Mrs. Bill Clinton”.


Dumbass.

Comment #54: Ruby  on  09/18  at  10:10 PM

Bagley, please explain how Party A and Party B define anyone’s identity.  The whole point of using those terms is that they don’t.

But please, explain it to us.  I can always use a good laugh.

Comment #55: Jrod  on  09/18  at  10:13 PM

This particular argument is verry, very weak.

No, you are just very, very stupid.

Because if the government switching from “bride/groom” to any other terminology that doesn’t reek of HOMOS, OHNOES!, well, that would be OK.

And other changes in language to make society more gender neutral?  Oh, no, that’s also fine and dandy.  Not dictating the terms of anybody’s life at all.

But the government wants to institute a change in language to make forms more gender neutral in a way that implies that TEH GHEY can use the same forms as the Normal God-Fearing Straight People?  Oh, well now they are taking away our human rights!

Many, many (I think most) adopt [their] husband’s name once married. And newspapers refer to them this way: Hillary Rodam Clinton, for example.

Yes, you are amazingly stupid if you really don’t see a difference between “Mrs. Bill Clinton has decided to run for President in 2008” and “Hillary Clinton has decided to run for President in 2008.”  News Flash:  Back in the day, newspapers referred to all married women by Mrs. + their husband’s full name.  Sometimes, if they needed to clarify, they would even add “formerly Hillary Rodham”.  As if the woman in question no longer existed as her own person, but was now just an extension of her husband.

It is a traditional reference.

Yes, and so are a lot of other things we don’t say anymore.  For instance terms like “Master”, “Lord”, “Sire”, and “My Liege”.  You would never use any of those words in reference to your boss.  Because times FUCKING CHANGE, asshole.

wait is it not the case that the switch to “Party A” and “Party B” began that way?

No, it’s not.  The switch to Party A and Party B came about due to the need to streamline paperwork so that it is more gender neutral.

Comment #56: The Opoponax  on  09/18  at  10:17 PM

“...or doing away with Mrs. John Doe as a way to refer to married women?”

“Many, many (I think most) adopt [their] husband’s name once married. And newspapers refer to them this way: Hillary Rodam Clinton, for example.”

The mostly phased out practice the above commenter was talking about was the one under which Hillary Clinton would have been referred to as Mrs. Bill Clinton, which you have to admit could reasonably be seen by a whole adult woman with her whole own name and identity to be a bit dismissive of her personhood, no?

Comment #57: GumbyAnne  on  09/18  at  10:17 PM

I am sorry.  I must not have made myself clear at all.

No, you made yourself perfectly clear. Idiosyncratic is just illiterate, apparently.

Comment #58: spencer  on  09/18  at  10:23 PM

“Show me where Hillary has ever been referred to as ‘Mrs. Bill Clinton’.”

But she has been referred to—quite often—as Mrs. Clinton, or Senator Clinton and I do think that official White House invitations during the time she was First Lady referenced her as Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton.

Perhaps you could cite for me where she has been referred to as Mrs. Rodham or, perhaps, Senator Rodham. (Dumbass.)

“Bagley, please explain how Party A and Party B define anyone’s identity.  The whole point of using those terms is that they don’t.”

So your argument is that the marriage license does not identify the “parties” to the agreement? Perhaps you want to re-think your post.

Comment #59: Bagley  on  09/18  at  10:24 PM

Ooooh, I have a brilliant idea, per the whole “but we’re traditionalists!” bullshit.

I think someone should petition California to create a separate marriage license for all the traditionalists out there.  It could say “hlæfdige” and “hlafweard”.  Just to confuse all the fundies.  Well, you wanted a “traditional” marriage certificate, didn’t you? 

Maybe it could actually be some sort of marriage certificate typical of marriage agreements of Anglo-Saxon Britain, too…  That’d really throw ‘em, because it’s not like they’d actually read the thing.

Comment #60: The Opoponax  on  09/18  at  10:25 PM

Every time I hear these well-fed, pampered, *safe* American fundies start whining about state persecution, I wish I believed in Christianity… because I can imagine then that whenever these SOBs prance through the pearly gates they are met by a gauntlet of people who were actually murdered by various states in various gruesome and inventive fashions.  I imagine the resulting conversations would be… interesting.

But silly me, I keep forgetting the “anti-intellectualism” of this segment of society—if it’s not in the Bible, it doesn’t matter.

*cough*  Off my hobby horse and sort of back on topic—*All* of you folks getting married for love, congratulations!  And can you send some of the sanity down south?  We need it.

Comment #61: graylor  on  09/18  at  10:28 PM

Let me cut to the root of your post, The Opoponax:

“No, you are just very, very stupid.”

Now, that prefaces your supposedly logical and reasoned post: not.

Care to try again.

And, GumbyAnne,

“The mostly phased out practice…”

No, not really.

Comment #62: Bagley  on  09/18  at  10:31 PM

I do think that official White House invitations during the time she was First Lady referenced her as Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton.

Yes, because official White House stationery still follows the old rules.  Pomp and circumstance for the First Lady hasn’t really changed at all since Jackie Kennedy’s day, if not earlier.  This is why people were so freaked out about Hillary in that role - the big fear was that, as one of these modern liberated career women, she’d come in and wreck the whole thing and turn the White House into some sort of radical feminist commune or something. 

Note that my example was of a newspaper switching to a more gender neutral and egalitarian style sheet

If you are OK with being referred to in your marriage announcement as “Jane Doe”, vs. “Mrs. Jonathan Doe”, there is no reason you can’t also deal with Party A and Party B.

Comment #63: The Opoponax  on  09/18  at  10:33 PM

“Gay marriage is a farce, as it every argument in favor of gay marriage. “

...why is anyone taking anything else Bagley says seriously?

More relevant comment: the wannabe bride and groom were already married, had kids, and are now divorced and trying to get their second marriage on. If they’re so traditional about marriage, then why are they on their (at least) second one?

Comment #64: cautious  on  09/18  at  10:35 PM

Caren et al., there are voting guides for the judges in Chicago/Cook County elections.  Just look in the Reader or the Sun-Times right before the election, and you’ll see ads by various bar associations.  I’m sure they’ll be googlable as well - maybe “Cook County bar association election ratings”?  And do read them, since there are loads of judges that none of the associations recommend, and they still get voted in since no one reads the friggin’ voting guides!

Ahem, I think my junior high politics geek just slipped out there for a moment.

Comment #65: RP  on  09/18  at  10:35 PM

Perhaps you could cite for me where she has been referred to as Mrs. Rodham or, perhaps, Senator Rodham. (Dumbass.)

If you are the one who doesn’t understand what the grownups are talking about, then you are the dumbass.  Your confusion does not make us dumbasses.

Wow, I’ve always thought conservatives had issues with projection, but I didn’t realize it was this bad…

Comment #66: The Opoponax  on  09/18  at  10:36 PM

I think women should not be allowed to work outside the home. Therefore, every business that employs a woman is discriminating against me, and every employee manual that contains references like “he or she” is offensive to me. I demand that every company in the United States bring itself into conformance with my views, and if they don’t, well wah wahhh they’re being intolerant of my deeply profoundly held deep profound beliefs.

Comment #67: Bitter Scribe  on  09/18  at  10:40 PM

“Bagley, please explain how Party A and Party B define anyone’s identity.  The whole point of using those terms is that they don’t.”

So your argument is that the marriage license does not identify the “parties” to the agreement? Perhaps you want to re-think your post.

Wow.  You are a fucking idiot.

Comment #68: Jrod  on  09/18  at  10:42 PM

“These folks are permitted to have an opinion. Come on folks, progressives are supposed to be tolerant. “

No one here is advocating that these people’s opinion should be censored (I hope, I too skim comments from time to time).  We also have our opinions about what these folks think, and can ridicule them freely.

Actually I’m going to have to agree with Bagley on this one.  The Constitution is quite specific:  “The right of conservatives to express their opinions without being challenged, mocked, or ridiculed shall not be infringed.”

It’s in there…

Comment #69: Captain Bathrobe  on  09/18  at  10:44 PM

So your argument is that the marriage license does not identify the “parties” to the agreement? Perhaps you want to re-think your post.

No, I believe the argument is that the new license does not identify the gender of the parties. I don’t see why it needs to, since other state documents such as contracts, auto licenses, etc., don’t either.

Comment #70: sophronia  on  09/18  at  10:45 PM

I guess you guys didn’t realize what Mr. BAGley’s first name is.

California will definitely ruin his marriage plans ... no place on that certificate for the goat to sign.

Comment #71: Ms Kate  on  09/18  at  10:46 PM

“Yes, because official White House stationery still follows the old rules.”

If I recall your question, it was: “Show me where Hillary has ever been referred to as ‘Mrs. Bill Clinton’.”

There was nothing implied that the discovery had to be made in newspaper articles. Perhaps you should be more specific in the future.

But, may I ask again: please cite for me where Senator Clinton has been referred to as Mrs. Rodham or, perhaps, Senator Rodham [in “...a newspaper switching to a more gender neutral and egalitarian style sheet”].

And, cautious,

“...why is anyone taking anything else Bagley says seriously?”

Please put cite one argument in favor of gay “marriage” that could not also be used to argue in favor of poligamy, polyandry, or incestuous marriage.

The Opoponax,

“If you are the one who doesn’t understand what the grownups are talking about, then you are the dumbass.  Your confusion does not make us dumbasses.”

Any confusion I may have is independent of you being a dumbass.

You have nothing. Try again. And again. And again. And again…...and so on.

Jrod,

Are you The Opoponax?

Comment #72: Bagley  on  09/18  at  10:53 PM

Hm.  After my jab about traditionalism and making fundies use Anglo-Saxon inspired marriage licenses, I’m reading a little about the status of women in Anglo-Saxon culture.  Surprisingly egalitarian, interestingly enough.  In fact I think a lot of this stuff would piss the fundies right off… 

It’s weird when you discover that the real traditions are far more progressive than the “traditionalists” want them to be.

Comment #73: The Opoponax  on  09/18  at  10:55 PM

Seriously.  Do not fuck with the California Office of Vital Records because you will.  not.  win.

I signed as the official witness on my friends’ marriage license just 2 days ago. The officiant was EXTREMELY clear that if any part of my name, signature or address was outside of the official box that the vital records people would kick the application back.

Comment #74: laura  on  09/18  at  10:59 PM

Please put cite one argument in favor of gay “marriage” that could not also be used to argue in favor of poligamy, polyandry, or incestuous marriage.

Only if you can cite one argument in favor of straight marriage that can’t also be used to argue in favor of poligamy, polyandry, or incestuous marriage.

Wait, you know, I think it is something about that TWO ADULTS thing?

Explain why I should care about polygamy or polyandry?  Polygamy is in the bible in the same major section as ... Leviticus!

Comment #75: Ms Kate  on  09/18  at  11:03 PM

“No, I believe the argument is that the new license does not identify the gender of the parties.”

Actually, you posted…

“Bagley, please explain how Party A and Party B define anyone’s identity.”

Identity is not gender.

“California will definitely ruin his marriage plans ... no place on that certificate for the goat to sign.”

How cerebral on you part. What insight. What cogent argument.

Comment #76: Bagley  on  09/18  at  11:04 PM

Preemptive, DoucheBagley, preemptive.

That’s because the state has NO INTEREST in which two ADULTS are getting married. 

There is not a line for a goat, dog, llama, etc. because they do not consent because they are not human.

Comment #77: Ms Kate  on  09/18  at  11:06 PM

BTW, since these two already have two divorces and five kids between them, how, exactly, did they handle their divorce papers?  Those don’t say “former bride” and “former groom” or even “ex-wife” and “ex-husband” but use generic descripters akin to what is on that marriage certificate. 

Are they going to claim that their divorces are not legal, either?

Comment #78: Ms Kate  on  09/18  at  11:13 PM

Ms Kate,

“Only if you can cite one argument in favor of straight marriage that can’t also be used to argue in favor of poligamy, polyandry, or incestuous marriage.”

How about three arguments….

Western tradition argues against incestuous marriage.

US law makes incestuous marriage illegal.

US law makes polygamy and polyandry illegal.

“Explain why I should care about polygamy or polyandry? “

I never asked why you should be concerned. I asked for a reasoned argument in favor of gay “marriage” that could not also be used to argue in favor of poligamy, polyandry, or incestuous marriage.

Try again…..

“That’s because the state has NO INTEREST in which two ADULTS are getting married.”

In that the state extends financial and legal benefits to married persons, then the state—by definition the taxpayer—definitely has an interest “...in which two adults are getting married.” (Caps removed to avoid yelling….)

Try again…

Comment #79: Bagley  on  09/18  at  11:18 PM

“The right of conservatives to express their opinions without being challenged, mocked, or ridiculed shall not be infringed.”

Damn Bush and his secret amendments!!1!

Comment #80: anoNY  on  09/18  at  11:25 PM

Spurious arguments, D. Bagley.  You try again - this time say something that has to do with the subject at hand.  Incest, polygamy, etc. have as much to do with being gay as being straight.  How does gay marriage make incest legal?  How does it change US laws on incest and poly marriage?  Gay folk won’t be able to marry their siblings, won’t be able to engage in poly marriage ...

Carry on in your sewer of ignorance, though.  I could say that the orbit of the moon around the earth prevents straight marriage, which would be just as spurious as your arguments, but then you’d flip a lid that the earth revolves around the moon and we’d be off on a Tangent of Stupid again.

Have a nice vinegar and water there ...

Comment #81: Ms Kate  on  09/18  at  11:27 PM

In that the state extends financial and legal benefits to married persons, then the state—by definition the taxpayer—definitely has an interest

in treating any and all citizens fairly and equally.

That is the basis of both MA and CA laws, right there.  If you can’t understand that, go back to whining why you can’t own that black guy next door.

Comment #82: Ms Kate  on  09/18  at  11:34 PM

“How does gay marriage make incest legal?”

Ms Kate, this is not my argument.

“How does it change US laws on incest and poly marriage?”

Again, not my argument.

“Gay folk won’t be able to marry their siblings, won’t be able to engage in poly marriage ...”

Again, not my argument.

“Carry on in your sewer of ignorance, though.”

Ignorance? Well, (see above), at least I can read and comprehend what I read:  I asked for a reasoned argument in favor of gay “marriage” that could not also be used to argue in favor of poligamy, polyandry, or incestuous marriage.

And this is something that you cannot provide. (I grant that it is a Sisyphean task.)

“Have a nice vinegar and water there ...”

Actually, a vey nice Shiraz from Australia.

Comment #83: Bagley  on  09/18  at  11:37 PM

“ Come on folks, progressives are supposed to be tolerant. “

What gave you that idea chief?
Didn’t like Roosevelt?
Fine
Meet Robespierre

Comment #84: jefft452  on  09/18  at  11:44 PM

“ Please put cite one argument in favor of gay “marriage” that could not also be used to argue in favor of poligamy, polyandry, or incestuous marriage. “

Gan you cite one in favor of “Traditional” marriage that could not also be used to argue in favor of poligamy, polyandry, or incestuous marriage?

Comment #85: jefft452  on  09/18  at  11:48 PM

For a religious couple, their primary interest is in their church’s form and recognition of the marriage, not the state’s mechanisms of recognizing it, so it is hard for me to understand why they care. In my own church, the legal documents of your marriage don’t actually “count” in the eyes of the church, unless you’ve had a church wedding. They only matter in a “render unto Caesar” sort of fashion, and if Caesar puts “Party A” and “Party B” on the forms, that’s hardly of any concern of my hypothetical marriage.

Comment #86: Tyro  on  09/18  at  11:51 PM

“Western tradition argues against incestuous marriage.”

It does?  going how far back? 

“US law makes incestuous marriage illegal.”

Nope, no federal law its state by state and what’s incestuous in one jurisdiction may not be incestuous in another

Comment #87: jefft452  on  09/18  at  11:55 PM

Who the hell cares if polyandry or polygamy is legal?  Are they all consenting adults? 

As for incest, the only argument I could think of is the resulting offspring, and their obvious genetic problems.

Comment #88: Joshua  on  09/19  at  12:05 AM

Doesn’t a lot of this revolve around the fact that the religious types in the US do their damnedest to conflate what are essentially two separate things?  Civil marriage and religious marriage are two separate things.  Take me, for example.  In the eyes of the state I am divorced.  In the eyes of the Catholic Church I remain a married man.  I don’t mix up the two in my head, and I don’t march down to the courthouse and demand that my wife remain married to me because of my religious status.

A religious person shouldn’t have the chutzpah to complain that the state uses neutral language on a state form.  There is nothing whatsoever stopping these folks from having whatever designations they want on the document creating their religious marriage. 

But, as noted by others here, this isn’t about clarity.  It’s about an attempt to force the state to adhere to a religious demand to use religious standards to govern a secular function.

Comment #89: seeker6079  on  09/19  at  12:07 AM

Seeker - Amen!

No pun intended. 

The church should have sole authority over marriages, and the state should control civil unions.

Comment #90: Joshua  on  09/19  at  12:09 AM

“I asked for a reasoned argument in favor of gay “marriage” that could not also be used to argue in favor of poligamy [sic], polyandry, or incestuous marriage. “

I’ll stoop…

Argument:  Treat like things alike
Reasoning:  It is legal for two consenting adults to get married, so long as they do not run afoul of the laws against polygamy, polyandry, and incest.  Two homosexual, consenting adults that do not run afoul of those same laws should be treated the same as two heterosexual, consenting adults.

Comment #91: anoNY  on  09/19  at  12:16 AM

“Bagley, please explain how Party A and Party B define anyone’s identity. The whole point of using those terms is that they don’t.”

So your argument is that the marriage license does not identify the “parties” to the agreement?

No, that’s not the argument, dumbshit. Jeebus. Do you even know where you came up with that little bit of grade-A straw?

I asked for a reasoned argument in favor of gay “marriage” that could not also be used to argue in favor of poligamy, polyandry, or incestuous marriage.

And this is something that you cannot provide.

Actually, several arguments have been provided, mostly dealing with the fact that gay marriage and the other things you list have precisely fuck-all to do with each other. The fact that you’re far too dishonest to even acknowledge these arguments, much less to deal with them in good faith, is your problem, not ours.

You’ve made your bed, now you have to lie in it. Pun intended.

Comment #92: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  09/19  at  12:22 AM

The good news is that the polling shows that Prop 8, which would undo gay marriage, is trailing 55-38.  Even a full 30% of self-described evangelicals in California now support gay marriage, which is an impressive number.  We can’t count the tofu cubes until we open the package, but I think whatever happens on the national stage, California will be full of win for gays and lesbians on November 4.

Comment #93: Hugo Schwyzer  on  09/19  at  12:59 AM

“Please put cite one argument in favor of gay “marriage” that could not also be used to argue in favor of poligamy, polyandry, or incestuous marriage. “

No…polygamy, polyandry, and incestuous marriage *should* be legal, albeit with some alterations to the poly ones to clear up pragmatic fincancial and right of attorney issues.

Comment #94: Brandon Cornell  on  09/19  at  01:00 AM

Also Bagley, you have yet to show that gay marriage and all arguments in favor of gay marriage are farcical. Even if it were the case that any given argument in favor of gay marriage could also be used in favor of incest or polygamy/polyandry is not automatically a strike against gay marriage, but could very well be a point in *favor* of those things.

Comment #95: Brandon Cornell  on  09/19  at  01:06 AM

Frickin’ awesome.  These two dunderheads won’t be polluting the gene pool, since Reverend Daddy says NO SEX UNTIL MARRIAGE.

Comment #96: Cello  on  09/19  at  01:12 AM

That’s it.  The bf is from California anyway and deeply misses the climate.  We’re goin’, we’re gonna apply for a marriage license, and then we’re goin’ on national TV and having him sob REAL TEARS cuz it’s been the dream of his lifetime to be the BRIDE and now he CAN’T DO IT.

Comment #97: Lisa KS  on  09/19  at  01:24 AM

GumbyAnne - I am seriously, honestly sorry.  No snark or hipster irony.  I’m very bad.  I’ll go get my eyes checked tomorrow.

Comment #98: idiosynchronic  on  09/19  at  01:43 AM

To the rest of you:

UP YOURS.

Jeeebus, people! 

I honestly read that as exactly what I rephrased it as.  Out of the hundreds of thousands of words i read a day, I get lambasted for 3 bad paras . .

Comment #99: idiosynchronic  on  09/19  at  01:46 AM

I know it’s traditional </eyeroll> to use “polygamy” to mean “multiple wives”, but technically it just means “multiple partners”, so saying “polygamy and polyandry” is sort of redundant.

This has been your pointless dictionary-based pendantry of the day.  Carry on.

Comment #100: JCfromNC  on  09/19  at  01:56 AM

Lessee, now….

MissT and I have been together 16 years today (16th anniversary of our first date - yea!).

And up until May of this year, we were unable to legally marry each other in any state in the US (since we weren’t MA citizens couldn’t marry there).

Finally we got married last month! At her parents’ home in CA! And my mom officiated! Yea!

And these two doucheknobs are whinging about being discriminated against?

They can go take a flying fuck. They wouldn’t know discrimination if it bit ‘em in the ass.

Comment #101: teac  on  09/19  at  02:05 AM

[And by today I mean the 18th - I just realized it’s after midnight on the east coast. Doh1]

Comment #102: teac  on  09/19  at  02:07 AM

Rachel Bird and Gideon Codding are such vile bigots that they’re boycotting marriage because gay people get to have it now.

I hear that gay people get to breathe air now too.  And I’m hoping that that leads to a Git and his Bird choosing to boycott _that_.  Just to teach us all a lesson.

Comment #103: FlipYrWhig  on  09/19  at  02:07 AM

Yeah, but we get to breathe only half as often as heteros.

It’s in the handbook.

Comment #104: teac  on  09/19  at  02:09 AM

Hey, these people are onto something. Maybe I can sue the IRS because they won’t refer to me a “Mowgmohr, Destroyer of Worlds” on my W2s.

Comment #105: Sophist FCD  on  09/19  at  02:16 AM

They could start some morning, get on I80 and head to Reno.  Get a license with their appropriate terms on it, have a civil or religious ceremony, lose some money on the slots and still get back to Roseville in time for the evening news.  And have the State of California and the HR office recognize their marriage.

But that would mean that they couldn’t whine any more.  Sorry, can’t do that.  That would mean that teh gahz would win.

Comment #106: natural cynic  on  09/19  at  02:21 AM

So this pair of Christian heteros are upset that the State of California won’t have government documentation reprinted to reflect the slogans they have on their T-shirts?  After all the money they spent on those T-shirts?

Dumbest. Religion.  Ever.

Comment #107: CourtneyMD  on  09/19  at  02:54 AM

I’m actually in favor of criminalizing heterosexual marriage.

I mean, FIRST we should wait until it’s legal for gays everywhere to marry, and THEN we should make marriage everywhere illegal. Otherwise, it would both seem mean-spirited towards LGTB’s and would give the right wing rhetorical leverage to say “I told you so.”

We all know that there is no shortage of wingnuts who claim that gays and lesbians are destroying the institution of marriage ... but there IS an actual shortage of gays and lesbians who DO want to destroy the institution of marriage (I’ve only met maybe three or four, among the dozens of queers I’ve known).

So that’s why I’m starting the “Heterosexuals Who Want to Destroy Marriage” Movement.  Who wants to help?  Remember, criminalizing marriage is for everyone!

(PS totally not kidding)

Comment #108: Jamesf  on  09/19  at  03:29 AM

Let’s look at the bright side: if they really are ‘traditionalist’, then they won’t have sex outside of marriage and hence will not procreate. Eureka! Let’s spread this idea around to the other fundies!

Comment #109: Sara Pulis  on  09/19  at  03:42 AM

Best wishes to you and MissT, teac.

Comment #110: Unree  on  09/19  at  04:16 AM

MissT and I have been together 16 years today (16th anniversary of our first date - yea!).

And up until May of this year, we were unable to legally marry each other in any state in the US (since we weren’t MA citizens couldn’t marry there).

Finally we got married last month! At her parents’ home in CA! And my mom officiated! Yea!

Somewhere, somehow a decent STRAIGHT marriage disintegrated because of you perverts.

ARE YOU HAPPY?

Comment #111: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  09/19  at  04:32 AM

You know why douchBagley and the others are crapping themselves over this?

Because as soon as gay marriage becomes established, it becomes an instant non-issue and everyone wonders what the fuck the argument was about.

It’s been over five years in Canada now, and very few people can believe that there ever was anything to debate. The sky did not fall. Ladies’ tuxes enjoyed a mild boom. Nothing much else.

I suppose you could say that we lost the last big group of people who were starry-eyed about the possibilities of marriage, though….

Comment #112: sunsin  on  09/19  at  04:48 AM

I think they should look on the bright side. My partner’s company, being owned by a very fair-minded gay man, recognizes domestic partnerships for the purpose of insurance and other such civil benefits of a union. If these two are lucky, they can sign a few forms attesting to a few nosy details and be so covered even *without* getting married. All thanks to the gays!

Comment #113: D. Sidhe  on  09/19  at  05:40 AM

Much joy to you both, teac!

As for the two bigots, this is one of the few times my heart does NOT rejoice for 2 people in love. But if they want to be so damn traditional, maybe they should read what the gospels have to say about divorce. They aren’t allowed sex, even if they remarry, according to their own religion. It’s adultery.

I’m betting the Pastor-father is one of the people who’s been trying to drag Roseville into the dark ages by trying to get evolution out or creationism into the schools. It’s one of only a handful of places in Cali, afaik, that has actually been having that be an issue.

Comment #114: Samantha Vimes  on  09/19  at  07:32 AM

No wonder the issue of marriage of same sex legalized by California court is a local issue. But the ederal law should be in place to unify the country with one law on this important debatable topic. The major issues which looming around the country for the coming election must be tackled and discussed with clear cut policy of both the political parties.
But most important is the participation of eligible voters for casting their vote in the coming election which is historical and going to shape the future of Democratic America at the same time for the world at large.

http://www.statedemocracy.org is the easiest tool to serve all the needs of the voters sitting at home.
Such as contact elected officials, absentee ballot, voter registration.polling place location.
Thanks

Comment #115: dennis moore  on  09/19  at  07:50 AM

Teac, congratulations to you and MissT!

Comment #116: mustelid  on  09/19  at  08:00 AM

She describes her stand as ‘personal, not religious’? Oh, and Daddy isn’t a freak telling people to disobey the law because ‘His God™’ wouldn’t like that form.

A piece of paper.

Seems like a fine example of a reason for a ‘jealous god’ to smite an entire population, don’t it…

Comment #117: PinkyLeftBrain  on  09/19  at  09:39 AM

Oh, good, finally heterosexual marriage is being affected in a tangible way by gay marriage.  It’s only a few months more before I can marry my horse!  Woot!

Comment #118: speedbudget  on  09/19  at  09:44 AM

Please put cite one argument in favor of gay “marriage” that could not also be used to argue in favor of poligamy, polyandry, or incestuous marriage

So now we know why the only cultures that allowed polygamy also welcome gay marriage with open arms.

Comment #119: Notorious P.A.T.  on  09/19  at  10:03 AM

Why are we worried…its soon going to change from “Party A” and “Party B” to “Plaintiff” and “Defendant” in a Complaint in Divorce…but wait She is is going to get screwed because they are NOT married! HAHAHA.
Where’s your traditionalist views the groom told you to have now?

Comment #120: BB  on  09/19  at  10:13 AM

This is kind of off-topic, but the picture reminded me of an ad I saw in a magazine recently for “Customized Girl” (http://www.customizedgirl.com/index.htm), which is exactly what it sounds like: a way for dudes with crazy ownership fetishes to brand their female property.  Can we say “What the fuck?”  I think we can.

Comment #121: jTuba  on  09/19  at  10:20 AM

I got married a year and a half ago in Minnesota, where gay marriage is not legal, and you know what it said on the license application? Party A and Party B. I’m not sure what the certificate itself says, it didn’t occur to me to look, but I did notice when I was filling out the paperwork. AND, there were lines for both parties to change their names, not just the “bride.” And you know what? Despite all the godless liberalism on the paperwork, we ended up married. The world didn’t implode. Amazing.

(Now if we could just tweak that one tiny statute to get rid of the “one man and one woman” bullshit…)

Comment #122: annie  on  09/19  at  10:21 AM

BB, they already have been divorced once each!  This is a complete scam!

Maybe their divorces aren’t final because the decrees didn’t contain such romanticized, gendered terms?

Comment #123: Ms Kate  on  09/19  at  10:28 AM

After some thought…

Why are the Christofascists so afraid of polygamy?  Wasn’t that par for the course in the Bible?  I mean, seriously.  They should be welcoming this with open arms.

And if it wasn’t polygamy, it was the husband banging the maidservant.

Comment #124: speedbudget  on  09/19  at  10:58 AM

Yeah, Speedbudget, that’s what I don’t get: Didn’t Christ say to toss out the whole Old Testiment, not just those parts that don’t suit us?

Oh dear, seems I’ve been reading my Bible again ... silly me!

Comment #125: Ms Kate  on  09/19  at  11:32 AM

This is kind of off-topic, but the picture reminded me of an ad I saw in a magazine recently for “Customized Girl” (http://www.customizedgirl.com/index.htm), which is exactly what it sounds like: a way for dudes with crazy ownership fetishes to brand their female property.

In defense of customizedgirl, their system is extremely flexible and you can upload pretty much any image you want and put it on a t-shirt.  I made myself a cool knitting t-shirt.  A lot of the other places on the net only offer the “Future Mrs.” shirts/hoodies with no other options.

Besides, it’s not Customized Girl’s fault that Jessica Simpson started a fad.  That’s where the whole cottage industry came from.

Comment #126: Mnemosyne  on  09/19  at  12:06 PM

Ms Kate, it doesn’t matter what Christ said, because Paul came by a few years later, to put back all the hateful crap that Jesus had removed. Except shellfish and poly-cotton blends, and anything else that fundies actually like.

Comment #127: Mustella  on  09/19  at  12:10 PM

Not to waste any more brain cells on these two yahoos, but if they don’t like the California marriage license, then why don’t they just go get married in Utah?

Comment #128: Liv  on  09/19  at  12:51 PM

I’ve been informed by a recently converted friend that Jesus does not contradict or supercede the OT, he merely completes it.

I don’t actually know what this means, but it was the only arguement she had regarding why some parts of the OT still count but not all of them.

Comment #129: Emaloo  on  09/19  at  12:53 PM

Emaloo:

I’ve been informed by a recently converted friend that Jesus does not contradict or supercede the OT, he merely completes it.

I don’t actually know what this means, but it was the only arguement she had regarding why some parts of the OT still count but not all of them.

Considering the striking similarities to the argument that’s been made here before about a different subject, I think we should start calling this the “Magic Pixie Dream Jesus” argument.

Comment #130: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  09/19  at  01:27 PM

I noticed a lot of fundies talk about “traditional marriage” but don’t seem to know what that actually means in terms of ownership and dowries and such like, and then it hit me - they’re talking about the Cunninghams in Happy Days. It’s all part of the “idealized 50’s were the pinnacle of civilization” strand.

Comment #131: Dolbia  on  09/19  at  02:16 PM

Unree
Samantha Vimes
mustelid

Thank you!!!!

+++

PiatoR

For Halloween, we’re gonna knock on the doors of happily married straight couples, yell “Boo” at them when they open their doors, and gleefully watch their marriages disintegrate before our eyes. It shall be a proud night for us I’m sure!

Comment #132: teac  on  09/19  at  02:29 PM

” ... they strain at a gnat and swallow a camel” seems a pretty appropriate quote in this situation.

Comment #133: celyn  on  09/19  at  02:46 PM

“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.”

Two children who are probably uninsured because their mother is an asshat….err, a bride.

Comment #134: Jason  on  09/19  at  02:59 PM

Well, I do like the paint color in their house.  But that’s pretty much the only nice thing I can say about them.

Anyway, let them live in sin if they’re that worked up about something so insignificant.  I just hope The Daily Show picks this up.

Comment #135: keshmeshi  on  09/19  at  04:37 PM

“This particular argument is verry, very weak.

No, you are just very, very stupid. “

Um, excuse me Opoponax, but I believe you meant to say ‘verry’, not ‘very’.

Comment #136: vitaminC  on  09/19  at  04:38 PM

Shitting on gay couples is probably the only way they can convince themselves they’re not sinners. Okay, maybe we’re divorced and screwing without having been married, but if we pick on the queers God will love us!

I can’t wait until Proposition 8 fails. Maybe these morons will pack up and move to some other, awful state where they’re welcome.

Comment #137: mythago  on  09/19  at  05:06 PM

Well, I do like the paint color in their house.  But that’s pretty much the only nice thing I can say about them.

Heh.  I was thinking that the mismatched dining room chairs were really bugging me.  Which is sort of unfair because I have mismatched dining room chairs, too.  Mine are just less hideous than theirs.

Comment #138: The Opoponax  on  09/19  at  06:18 PM

The reason they arn’t touching, and are not married, is that one of them is really, really not interested in getting married again, most likely doesn’t even like the other one, and can’t find a real way to break up. So. I’m guessing this is passive-aggressive dude behavior on his part.

Comment #139: Indy  on  09/19  at  07:11 PM

Someone has to live next door to these people. Whenever I read about assholes in the news I always think that’s the real tragedy—the poor, suffering neighbors.

Stupidity is a nuisance, surely violating the “spirit” of such ordinances. I’d be calling the cops to quell that shit.

Comment #140: seventwentyfour  on  09/19  at  07:28 PM

The reason they arn’t touching, and are not married, is that one of them is really, really not interested in getting married again, most likely doesn’t even like the other one, and can’t find a real way to break up. So. I’m guessing this is passive-aggressive dude behavior on his part.

LOL Indy… just wait though, Oprah will have a show on about how women could have done more to prevent this from happening.

Comment #141: Danica Lefse Queen  on  09/20  at  05:45 AM

I wonder if they file jointly, anyhow.

My spouse and I had to pay over $6000 extra because the feds don’t recognize our relationship.

Comment #142: Crissa  on  09/20  at  08:59 AM

Here the state is not letting these people get married on their own terms, so they’re saying “fuck the state, we don’t need your license to be a married couple.”  To me that shows the balls the gay community should have been showing this whole time.

That’s not to say laws shouldn’t be made so anyone can have their loved one(s) visit them in the hospital and whatnot.  But gay people fighting over the terms “marriage” and “civil union” seems comparable to straight people fighting over “bride and groom” and “party A and party B”.

So should gay couples fighting to have their “civil unions” be known as “marriages” by the state be ridiculed as babies and assholes?

Comment #143: Scott  on  09/20  at  04:57 PM

So should gay couples fighting to have their “civil unions” be known as “marriages” by the state be ridiculed as babies and assholes?

Scott, here’s the thing that all of the bullshit surrounding the Wedding-Industrial Complex conceals:

Every marriage is a civil union.

Every legal marriage has to be approved by the state, and the state doesn’t care if you get married in a full Catholic Mass or if you spend 5 minutes with a judge at the courthouse.  If you have that full Catholic Mass but neglect to file the paperwork, you are not married as far as the state is concerned.  You can whine and cry and stamp your feet as much as you want and complain about religious freedom, but if you don’t meet the state’s requirements to be married, they don’t care—you are not legally married.

All of this is concealed by the fact that most people get married in some kind of church and the legal paperwork is quietly signed after the ceremony is over.  If you don’t sign it, or if your officiant does something wrong, you are not married, no matter how many prayers the officiant said.

Gay marriage activists have been calling it “civil unions” to try and get around all of the people who are convinced that it was the priest’s words that made them legally married and not their signature on the certificate issued by the state, but we really need to stop pussyfooting around.  Marriage is a civil union and a legal institution no matter how much religion you pile on top of it.

Comment #144: Mnemosyne  on  09/20  at  07:59 PM

Just to expand on Mnemosyne’s excellent post, there is no one single universally understood legal meaning for the terms “civil union,” “domestic partnership,” “civil partnership” (a UK construct) “reciprocal beneficiary” (in Hawai’i), etc.

Also, none of those statuses is recognized by federal law, meaning we same-sex couples are barred from legal protections in federal courts, are not eligible for social security benefits of our partners, federal taxation benefits and obligations do not apply to us, etc., etc.

States offering civil unions with most but not all of the rights, duties, and obligations of opposite-sex marriage:

Vermont (available June 2000). In response to a state supreme court ruling.

Connecticut (available October 2005). Enacted by the state legislature apparently in response to GLAD’s filing of a marriage equality suit. There are some concerns about CT’s situation. Connecticut law purports to ban recognition of marriages between same-sex couples. “The Attorney General of Connecticut has issued an opinion suggesting that in light of the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman in Connecticut law, Connecticut will not recognize legal marriages performed in Massachusetts or foreign countries. GLAD believes that the Attorney General’s opinion is wrong and ignores long-established principles of Connecticut law that a marriage that is valid where celebrated is valid in Connecticut. Ultimately, this will be decided by the courts.” At present there is a case before the state supreme court arguing for marriage to be opened to same-sex couples.

New Jersey (available February 2007). In response to a state supreme court ruling. There is much controversy over NJ’s civil unions for same-sex couples because many “unionized” same-sex couples continue to suffer legal detriments at the hands of businesses that refuse to recognize their legal status as equivalent to marriage although that was the intent of the law. Gov. Corzine supports marriage equality and has stated he will sign a marriage bill, but not until 2009.

New Hampshire (available January 2008). Passed by the state legislature, with no court order, no pending suit.

States offering domestic partnerships: (Some municipalities offer domestic partner registries to same-sex couples - and generally what rights and responsibilities do attach to couples in those relationships ends at the city line.)

California (current iteration 2005). Still available, although same-sex couples can now marry in the state (see below).

Washington (available June 2008). In response to a state supreme court ruling and the death of Kate Fleming. Confers only 171 of the rights, duties, and obligations of opposite-sex marriage.

States offering marriage with most of the rights, duties, and obligations of opposite-sex marriage:

Massachusetts (available May 17, 2004). In response to a state supreme court ruling. Originally, open only to MA residents and couples intending to reside in MA. On July 31, 2008, Gov. Patrick signed a bill repealing a 1913 law preventing non-residents from marrying in the state if their home jurisdictions would not recognize them. Effective immediately. There is at present a ballot initiative to allow the voters to repeal the repeal.

California (available June 17, 2008). In response to a state supreme court ruling. On the chopping block due to a ballot initiative up for vote in November. The state attorney general has decreed that in the event of a “Yes on 8” vote, all marriages between same-sex couples performed in the state will not be invalidated (on which of course the courts will have the final word).

Comment #145: teac  on  09/20  at  10:03 PM

To me that shows the balls the gay community should have been showing this whole time.

Last Spring I was ending a date with a really sweet man. I walked him to his car and we stood on the sidewalk for a minute. We hugged and talked for a minute holding onto each other, like people do when they end a really good date. We shared a nice kiss, not making out, but sweet and god, his eyes and the scratch of his beard…then from a passing car some guy yelled “faggots!” And he barely broke the kiss and looked me in the eyes, just an inch or so apart, and smiled and said to me, “yeah, you faggot.” And kissed me again and hugged me a little tighter. Neither of us cared if that asshole was coming back with a baseball bat.

It was one of the best kisses of my life.

So don’t tell me about gay people not having any “balls.” When I risk bodily harm as a matter of routine by simply kissing a date goodnight then I want something in fucking return for that. Call it “marriage” or “civil unions” but separate but equal doesn’t fucking cut it. For anyone.

Comment #146: seventwentyfour  on  09/21  at  12:20 AM

“So don’t tell me about gay people not having any “balls.” When I risk bodily harm as a matter of routine by simply kissing a date goodnight then I want something in fucking return for that. Call it “marriage” or “civil unions” but separate but equal doesn’t fucking cut it. For anyone.”

True that.  I’m sure you’ve had to put up with a ton of unnecessary crap and hate.  I think that sucks, obviously.  My main point in commenting was that people in this story were called vile biggots along with a lot of other names for caring about words.  I wouldn’t like gay people being ridiculed for similar reasons.  I just don’t dig a lot of the tone here.

And I agree that they should all be civil unions to the government, with marriage being something people define for themselves.  I don’t really care what the government calls it if I ever get married, and I don’t care what anybody else calls it either.  I think the gay community, and really everyone, should have the same attitude, and not give the government undue power.

Comment #147: Scott  on  09/21  at  01:00 AM

And I agree that they should all be civil unions to the government, with marriage being something people define for themselves.

Again, Scott, all marriages are civil unions.  Some people were trying to use “civil unions” as a way to sneak gay marriage in under the radar, but the term has outlived its usefulness.

If religious freaks want to claim that marriage is a holy bond between a man and a woman, they need to stop dragging the state into it and give up getting marriage certificates issued by the state.  Otherwise, they’re dictating to the state that their religious beliefs must take precedence over the civil state of marriage.

Comment #148: Mnemosyne  on  09/21  at  02:48 AM

“In that the state extends financial and legal benefits to married persons, then the state—by definition the taxpayer—definitely has an interest “...in which two adults are getting married.” (Caps removed to avoid yelling….)

Try again”

Oh, Bagely.  Freedom isn’t free.  It requires sacrifice.  Why do you hate freedom?

Comment #149: Tim  on  09/22  at  10:57 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.