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

[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.