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.
“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.”
In May, after the California State Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage legal, the courts mandated state officials to provide gender-neutral licenses and other marriage forms. “Bride” and “groom” became “Party A” and “Party B.”
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.
Robert Bork wrote a book not long ago entitled “Slouching toward Gomorrah.”
This article represents one more step in that direction.
As Aristotle said husbands and wives exist by nature and are prior to the state. Even the mighty Golden State won’t be able to resist the consequences of messing with human nature.
Also, wouldn’t Orwell have gotten a kick out of “Party A” and “Party B”?
With legal language such as that, is there any legal ground left to prevent “Party C and Party D and Party E and…”? Watch the gay marriage advocates squirm when the polyamory advocates march in the streets shouting, “The more the merrier!”
#3-and what would prevent “party B” from being a barnyard animal?
At present, the fact that baryard animals aren’t legally capable of signing contracts. The bestiality argument, to my mind, holds little or no water and makes opponents of homosexual marriage look silly. The polyamory argument is a much better one. I expect a challenge from schismatic LDS groups not too far down the line.
I’m a bit of an agnsotic myself on this issue. Part of me is fine to have forms like this by the State, if thereby churches are allowed to follow their own teachings on the subject without outside interference. But I also recognize that to far too many of the activists pushing homosexual marriage “freedom” means only that one is free to agree with them, and being recognized by the State won’t stop them forcing themselves down the throats of religious groups.
Sure, Andrew-real silly. And if you would have told someone about 30 years ago that we were just around the corner from “Party A” and “Party B”, they would have told you to go get your head examined.
Unfortunately for us all, such language has all the momentum at the moment. I suspect that Cal’s referendum will not be defeated and that what Mass has started will spread steadily because so many powerful cultural forces are behind the concept.
As you have noticed, however, Party A and Party B is not gender neutral. Indeed, it has no gender referent at all. But it is by no means neutral either, for it denatures marriage entirely, and this is not a neutral social posture. While it will not immediately popularize a nice old ladies marrying their cats, it will encourage the continuing abandonment of standards, for A and B set only the standard of two entities; all other standards become meaningless, and this is one more evil arising from inclusiveness. Moreover, it dehumanizes marriage, an action whose consequences, if continued, are exceedingly unpleasant to consider. Facelessness and anomie have always been the enemy of meaning, of human significance. Party A and Party B can divorce easily in a way that Louise and Art cannot.
And what is adultery to Party A and Party B? Why should Party A and Party B commit themselves deeply and permanently? Larry