So let me get this straight. These people are choosing to deny legal recognition for their marriage because the wording on the form isn't what they want it to be? I don't think they thought this cunning plan through. As a protest against gay marriage, this is singularly ineffective.
Quote of awesomeness: "'We just feel that our rights have been violated,' [Ms. Bird/Mrs. Codding] said." Um, what right would that be? The right to a gender-specific form?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I get your point, but still.....Did the State of California have to deny their marriage license because the guy wrote the words Groom and Bride next to "Party A" and "Party B"? If that's all it takes to satisfy this couple, is it really such a big deal that they have to reject the license? Just as the couple is hardly striking a blow for a conservative/traditional definition of marriage by choosing not to fill otu a new form, California bureaucrats are hardly striking a blow for GLBT rights by denying the form because Mr. codding wrote in a few extra words to further define the parties.
Gotta agree with Ben on this one (other than the spelling of the word "out"). Also seems like it would be just as easy to leave "Party A" and "Party B" as two blanks and ask the couple to fill in "groom" or "bride" as appropriate. This is utter lameness at its most awesome.
I'm pretty sure that leaving the two spots blank and allowing the parties to fill in whatever they wanted was one of the final options considered for the forms by the state...
I also love that you've got a divorced woman with two kids and a divorced man with three trying to take a stand for traditional family values.
God bless California. They need it.
Mike and Ben - points taken. Dumbdiddlyumptious on California's part too. But really... this is where you make your stand?
On an unrelated note, during the ESPN broadcast of the football game between West Virginia and Colorado, they're playing John Denver songs after the teams score a touchdown - "Country Roads" for WVU and "Rocky Mountain High" for CU. How awesome is that?
The level of awesomeness (y) depends entirely on how many touchdowns are scored (x1 and x2 (for each team respectively)), such that it can be expressed as the function y = [x1 * (constant derrived from one's love of John Denver)] * [x2 * (constant derrived from one's love of John Denver)] / [(constant derrived from one's love of John Denver) - (x1+x2)].
I'm just gonna go with, "Pretty damn awesome."
I'd say it strikes me as the opposite of pro-gay-marriage folks that say that simply having the same rights as a married couple in a civil union is not enough, and it has to be called "marriage."
I'd consider it semantics either way, and go the route of having all partnerships regulated by the state as "Civil Unions" and leave "marriage" in the hands of churches (et al), as they so decide.
Yes, it strips "marrige" of explicit legal benefits. Yes, it allows anyone to dilute "marriage" to be whatever the heck they want it to be. But it allows curches (et al) who hold to a more restrictive view to do so, without the need for a legal challenge about what marriage is from a civil perspective, muddying just how far the church/state separation can stretch.
I'd consider it semantics either way, and go the route of having all partnerships regulated by the state as "Civil Unions" and leave "marriage" in the hands of churches (et al), as they so decide.
Yeah, that's been my position on the issue for a while now. Those two separate institutions already exist, and it's just bizarre linguistic gymnastics that keep them entangled.
I also think gay couples should just call themselves married regardless of the marriage laws in their state of residence. There's no law against wearing a ring and referring to your partner as "my husband/wife..."
Post a Comment