Marriage Note

From PZ Myers comes this bit about two goofballs in California who don't like the new marriage license applications:

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.

"We are traditionalists – we just want to be called bride and groom," said Bird, 25, who works part time for her father's church. "Those words have been used for generations and now they just changed them."

Needless to say, these are a couple of religious right freaks who are out to prove "damage" under the new system.

And Rachel Bird described her position as "personal – not religious."

"We just feel that our rights have been violated," she said.

To some, the couple's stand may seem frivolous. But others believe "bride" and "groom" are terms that are too important for the state to set aside.

"Those who support (same-sex marriage) say it has no impact on heterosexuals," said Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute. "This debunks that argument."

"Our rights have been violated. . . " That didn't take long, did it? I'm waiting for Brad Dacus to file suit. I'd love to follow this one in the courts.

I'm not alone in this conclusion: Jeremy Hooper sees it too:

Now, judging by her father's presence in the anti-gay marriage fight, the chances are pretty great that this is nothing more than a PR stunt meant to demonstrate all of the ways heterosexuals will supposedly "suffer" under the weight of our cruel equality. But if the best Ms. Bird can do is throw a hissy about how a government document refers to her hubby, then we're thinking she might have just disproved the "there's no such thing as bad publicity" cliché.

'Nuff said?

(A note, under the heading "this fish smell many day dead": it's a sad comment on the perceived integrity of conservative Christians that someone like this can insist that this is merely a personal issue and not intended to make a statement about marriage equality and she is immediately perceived as a liar. Of course, the idea that the state of California has to do things to suit her wishes strikes me as pretty infantile.)