Poor, poor babies

[ellid]

They'd rather live in sin than fill out a gender-neutral marriage license.

I had the privilege of officiating at a wedding right after equal marriage became legal in Massachusetts. Licenses now read "first party" and "second party," and AFAIK no one has challenged this. I can't see why anyone would object, since people wishing to marry can always flip a coin to see who is the first party and who is the second party. I also cannot see why this couple can't hop a plane, fly to Vegas, and be married by an Elvis impersonator if they're so upset at the "bride" (and her children from a previous marriage) not being on her "groom's" health insurance.

*pfft*

Comments

[briony530.livejournal.com]

Excuse me while my head finishes exploding...their RIGHTS are being violated? Which rights would those be?

ARGH! If you're going to refuse to sign a legal form because you don't like the language, then you don't get on the health insurance. That's the way it goes, you can't be a rebel and have a low-cost generic rx option, sorry.

Maybe now they can have a taste of what homosexuals have endured for, well, ever.

[patrikia.livejournal.com]

"Maybe now they can have a taste of what homosexuals have endured for, well, ever."

Amen to that!

[briony530.livejournal.com]

Hallelujah, sister!

Two Words...

[ixchelmala.livejournal.com]

LEGAL DOCUMENT

Geeez! Any other legally binding document with another person is going to have language, just like what's being described above.

The bride and groom thing is more for the non-legal bits of this LEGAL UNION, if you ask me. It's simply traditional language hold over that's been finally updated.

Re: Two Words...

[briony530.livejournal.com]

Well you know they need to be able to say we are declaring war on their traditional values and language and all. As if we were coming into their church and telling them not to use "bride" or "groom" in the ceremony.

[brieza.livejournal.com]

How silly. It's just a piece of paper for the state. For the ceremony that everyone sees, she's still the bride, he's still the groom. I have no sympathy for them.

[titti]

K, taking for granted the fact that these two are idiots, I really think that marriages should be abolished, all of them.

Marriages were traditionally a church institution, while people had civil contracts. I say give the marriages back to the churches (I wasn't married in church), and give the rest of us contracts. So the churches can do whatever they want, depending on their faith, although those union would have NO legal status, and the states only have to recognize their contracts regardless of gender.

[helwen.livejournal.com]

Why, how positively medieval of you ;)

Actually, that's how things were done more or less in the middle ages, at least in the sources I was able to find years ago... a couple couldn't enter the church together until they were married, so they'd get married on the steps outside before going into the building.

[helwen.livejournal.com]

Sorry, forgot to finish my thought there.... basically, although folks sought the church's blessing, the marriages were essentially contracts back then as well. Somewhere along the line the marriage moved indoors, to the extent that now in the Greek Orthodox church you apparently have to be married in a church or it doesn't count (a lady I knew wanted to get married in a park, figuring God made the trees and grass so it should be okay -- got kicked out of the church for it).

[titti]

Incredibly so. ;)

In Italy we still have traces of the old customs, like posting the wedding bands outside to make sure that everyone knows that you can get married and object if needed.

[persevero.livejournal.com]

Sounds as if they deserve each other - petty bloody-mindedness is not an attractive characteristic (sorry Severus).

[ladypeyton.livejournal.com]

"My nose! I cut it off! Now you'll be sorry!"

*expletive deleted*

[danabren.livejournal.com]

Their rights haven't been violated.

They have the right to be fuckwits, just like everyone else, and they are taking full advantage of it.

[rwday.livejournal.com]

I'm going to go against the grain here. While I don't think their rights have been violated, I don't see why the state can't create a range of forms with different terminology. Considering how easy it is to create and print documents, there's no real reason that I can see why they couldn't have 'bride and groom' 'bride and bride,' 'groom and groom' and 'Party A/Party B' forms available. So why not have a choice? I know I wouldn't have wanted to be 'Party B' on my marriage license - I was and am very proud to be my husband's bride.

[semyaza.livejournal.com]

Tragic. Just tragic.