Do You, Party A, Take Party B to be Your Lawfully Wedded …

Gay Marriage Photo Stuart Gaffney, left, and John Lewis, right, embrace hands with their wedding bands on in San Francisco on Friday, June 30, 2006. More California voters now support allowing same-sex marriage than oppose it, according to a new poll released Wednesday, May 28, 2008. (AP Photo/Benjamin Sklar) 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?

FILED UNDER: General, , , , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is a Security Studies professor at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. William d'Inger says:

    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?




    0



    0
  2. rodney dill says:

    Sounds like technical instructions. Insert Tab A in Slot B.




    0



    0
  3. William d'Inger says:

    Sounds like technical instructions. Insert Tab A in Slot B.

    Um, isn’t it more a problem of having two slots and no tabs?




    0



    0
  4. Mark Jaquith says:

    There’s nothing romantic about marriage licenses as they exist today. You get them in a courthouse, the most unromantic place in the universe.




    0



    0
  5. anjin-san says:

    You know what they say William, scratch a homophobe, find a scared boy in the closet…




    0



    0
  6. James Joyner says:

    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.




    0



    0
  7. Michael says:

    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.




    0



    0
  8. Michael says:

    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.




    0



    0
  9. Bithead says:

    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.




    0



    0
  10. William d'Inger says:

    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”.




    0



    0
  11. Bobbert says:

    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.




    0



    0
  12. Bithead says:

    “tying the knot”.

    (Wince.)

    Rodney, you’ve GOTTA get this guy more active in the caption contests.




    0



    0
  13. Bithead says:

    Slippery slope, indeed.

    Indeed, but this is the bridge to the future, after all.




    0



    0
  14. Michael says:

    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.




    0



    0
  15. William d'Inger says:

    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.




    0



    0
  16. Bithead says:

    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…




    0



    0
  17. William d'Inger says:

    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.




    0



    0
  18. Bithead says:

    Sarcasm is giving a sharp edge to a blunt truth,and is only one of the many services I offer.




    0



    0
  19. Bobbert says:

    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.




    0



    0
  20. Bithead says:

    Bobert:

    Observant, isn’t he?




    0



    0
  21. Michael says:

    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.




    0



    0
  22. Michael says:

    Observant, isn’t he?

    Yay, you got your Ad Hominem in on this thread too, feel better now Bit?




    0



    0
  23. Bithead says:

    Humor, remember?
    Stolen movie line….
    Oh, never mind.




    0



    0