More on Marriage and the "Party A / Party B" Bigots
As background:
Last month, Rachel Bird exchanged vows with Gideon Codding in a church wedding in front of family and friends. As far as Bird is concerned, she is a bride.
To the state of California, however, she is either “Party A” or “Party B.”
Those are the terms that have replaced “bride” and “groom” on the state’s new gender-neutral marriage licenses. And to Bird and Codding, that is unacceptable.
…
Bird and Codding have refused to complete the new forms, a stand that has already cost them. Because their marriage is not registered with the state, Bird cannot sign up for Codding’s medical benefits or legally take his name. They are now exploring their options, she said.
…
On Sept. 3, the couple received a letter from the Placer County Clerk-Recorder Registrar of Voters informing them that their license did not comply with California law and that the state did not accept licenses that had been altered. The couple had 10 days to complete a duplicate form.
Windypundit weighs in:
So, they literally would have been happy writing “bride” and “groom” in the signature boxes on the license, but some inflexible clerk wasn’t going let them get away with that kind of anarchy.
I would respond with two hasty stitches:
1. It seems, at least based on this one media account, that this was certainly not, as Windypundit describes it, the renegade action of “some inflexible clerk.” Personally, I would hope that states have clear — and indeed inflexible — rules about arbitrarily altering official documents, as California seems to have. Even for strictly private contracts, there are well-established rules about altering forms and documents. Entire law practices are built around making sure that wills and other documents aren’t impermissibly scribbled on or white-outed. Etc.
2. Let us not lose sight of the hypocrisy this couple and their theocrat enablers are exhibiting. The less rabid anti-gay bigots often insist that they have nothing against gay couples living together and replicating some aspects marriage through contracts, joint accounts, powers of attorney and so on. It’s only the symbolism that comes with the word “marriage,” and not the coupling itself, to which they object. To them, marriage transcends licenses and court rulings and is only about solemnifying a religious status; the legal status is incidental. Well, fine: then let Bird and Codding enjoy their “transcendental,” “valid in the eyes of God” marriage without a license, the same way they expect gays to. Let them, on principle, forego the over 1,000 benefits that come with legally recognized marriage, the same way they expect gays to. Or is it possible that maybe, just maybe, legal recognition really does matter?
Filed under: Gay Rights and Issues, Law, Society, Religion, Culture Wars
1. Alright, so get an opinion or a ruling or an interpretation or whatever, saying that people can write in their own titles in the signature boxes without altering the meaning of the document. Better yet, change the form to say "Groom or Party A" and "Bride or Party B." Or add "bride" and "groom" checkboxes in each signature block. Or let them make up titles in the form. (Heck, I can make up titles of the officers when I incorporate, so why not marriage partners?) Just make this go away.
2. That sword cuts both ways. If we support the desire of gays to be "married" rather than "domestic partners" because the words matter, then don't "bride" and "groom" matter too?
Really, it's harmless to just give them what they want here, and it takes an argument out of the hands of the bigots.
Windy,
1. I don't think anybody would particularly argue against this. But the thing is, in this case, no such legislation or ruling has been passed. It's not a matter yet of what SHOULD be, but just what IS.
2. Most of us support the desire of gays to be "married" rather than "domestic partners" not because words matter, but because in reality, marriage and domestic partnerships are different legal designations (each with their own sets of rights and responsibilities). Any attempt thus far to make domestic partnerships EXACTLY equal to marriage has been a failure.
Well, the point of my post was that it should be different. The California government could have handled this better and avoided this silly conflict, which hands a technical victory to the other side: Despite all the reassurances, gay marriage in California has taken something away from straight marriage. Something trivial to be sure, but such trivialities are the stuff of which fund raising letters are born.
As for the second point, heck, I don't know. So much of the cultural meaning of marriage is symbolic, and I think the state should accommodate these meanings.
I guess what really angers me is that it seems so typical of government to overdo the solution to the problem and create another problem
By stipulating that this couple had to enter "Party A" and "Party B" on their license instead of "Bride" and "Groom", of course that's idiotic. But that hardly seems to be your point.
No, that really was most of my point. The only thing I was trying to add is that this stupidity has handed the anti-gay-marriage folks an issue: Straight couples can't call themselves "bride" and "groom" anymore in California on their marriage license. It's monumentally trivial, but it's real, and it's because of gay marriage. I expect the anti-gay right to make a mountain of it.
However, googling around, this incident mostly seems to be covered by gay-issues blogs and press, so I could be wrong.
And just for the record, I regard California gay marriage as a big step forward in the most important civil rights struggle of our time. There are going to be some big battles in the courts and the legislatures, but I think this is the leak that will bring the whole dam crumbling down.