Do You, Party A, Take Party B to be Your Lawfully Wedded …
 |
James Joyner | Wednesday, May 28, 2008 |
California’s is having to revise its marriage licenses to be a bit more gender neutral.
California officials are telling county clerks that they can start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on June 17. The state Office of Vital Records says it chose June 17 because the state Supreme Court has until the end of business on June 16 to decide whether to grant a stay of its ruling legalizing gay marriage.
Gay rights advocates and some clerks initially thought couples would be able to wed as early as June 14 — exactly 30 days after the court’s May 15 ruling.
New marriage license forms also will include lines for “Party A” and “Party B” instead of bridge and groom.
It lacks a certain romantic something, doesn’t it?
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia with his wife and infant daughter.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- Do You, Party A, Take Party B to be Your Lawfully Wedded …
- But Enough About Gay Marriage–What About Gay Divorce?
- New York Recognizes Gay Marriage
- NY Judge Recognizes Gay Marriages From Canada
- New Hampshire Legalizes Gay Marriage, 6th State
- California Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban
- When Vanity Searches Go Wrong
- Why License At All?
- California Supremes Uphold Prop 8 AND Gay Marriage
- Should Illegal Immigrants Get Driver’s Licenses?
- House Trades Freedom for Health Coverage, Senate’s Move
- Hasan a Muslim First, American Second?
- OTB Caption JamTM
- Taking “No” As Iran’s Answer
- Update on the Fort Hood Massacre
- OTB Latenight – Soft Cell
- Caption Contest Winners
- Breaking: Shootings at Fort Hood (Updated)
- Pentagon Expected To Ask For Supplementary War Funding. As Usual.
- Marking the Anniversary of the Embassy Seizure
How do the happy couples decide who is "A" and who is "B"? Isn't that itself descrimination? How long will it be before "Party B" becomes a prejorative with latent sexist overtones? Should we consult Sharon Stone about that?
Sounds like technical instructions. Insert Tab A in Slot B.
Sounds like technical instructions. Insert Tab A in Slot B.
Um, isn't it more a problem of having two slots and no tabs?
There's nothing romantic about marriage licenses as they exist today. You get them in a courthouse, the most unromantic place in the universe.
You know what they say William, scratch a homophobe, find a scared boy in the closet...
There's nothing romantic about marriage licenses as they exist today.
Certainly not. I'm just talking about the "Party A" and "Party B" business.
How long will it be before "Party B" becomes a prejorative with latent sexist overtones?
Party B is ok, it's Party C that starts causing all the problems.
Um, isn't it more a problem of having two slots and no tabs?
Where's the problem with that?*
(*) Yes, I'm being sexist, sue me.
You know what they say William, scratch a homophobe, find a scared boy in the closet...
They have a name for folks with no sense of humor... Bureaucrats.
They have a name for folks with no sense of humor... Bureaucrats.
Since we're on the subject, I forgot to mention above that the two tab/no slot combo gives a whole new meaning to "tying the knot".
New marriage license forms also will include lines for “Party A” and “Party B” instead of bridge and groom.
Good. Once you let people marry bridges who knows what that could lead to.
Slippery slope, indeed.
"tying the knot".
(Wince.)
Rodney, you've GOTTA get this guy more active in the caption contests.
Slippery slope, indeed.
Indeed, but this is the bridge to the future, after all.
Good. Once you let people marry bridges who knows what that could lead to.
I didn't realize that inanimate objects could be party to a civil legal contract.
Oh wait, maybe you're the one who's wrong.
Rodney, you've GOTTA get this guy more active in the caption contests.
I ... *ahem* ... *cough* ... DID take first place last time. Of course, I've never been plastered all over the bottom of the barrel.
I ... *ahem* ... *cough* ... DID take first place last time.
That's another reason.
Of course, I've never been plastered all over the bottom of the barrel
.
Yeah, well.... (Toe in the sand) You know...
Indeed, but this is the bridge to the future, after all.
Maybe you ought to lighten up on the sarcasm. No telling what angie-san thinks of bridgophobics. Which makes me wonder what you get when you scratch your angie.
Sarcasm is giving a sharp edge to a blunt truth,and is only one of the many services I offer.
I didn't realize that inanimate objects could be party to a civil legal contract.
Oh wait, maybe you're the one who's wrong.
Or maybe - just maybe - I was making fun of the typo in the article that James linked to.
Sheesh.
Bobert:
Observant, isn't he?
Or maybe - just maybe - I was making fun of the typo in the article that James linked to.
Sheesh.
Heh, didn't even see that, sorry.
Observant, isn't he?
Yay, you got your Ad Hominem in on this thread too, feel better now Bit?
Humor, remember?
Stolen movie line....
Oh, never mind.
