The One With Aldacron

A couple in California are ‘offended‘ (you know, the word that means I’m Christian and my poor wittle feelings are hurt) that the State of California now uses the gender-neutral labels ‘Party A’ and ‘Party B’ on marriage licenses. PZ has already made a mockery of the spoiled nits, but there are a couple of points he didn’t hit on (though as I glance through the comments I see at least one that has expressed what I was intending to express in this post).

The gist of it is that they are upset at not being referred to as ‘Bride’ and ‘Groom’ on the form. When signing the license, the groom wrote the two terms next to the labels already there. The State does not accept altered licenses and informed them that they have 10 days to return a duplicate form. They are refusing to do so. As a consequence, they are now married without legal benefits.

The astounding absurdity of this ’stand’ the couple is taking is not that it is completely and utterly frivoulous, but that it is weighed down by a ton of hypocrisy. First, there’s this little gem from the wife:

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

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

Awwww. Tell that to the hundreds of same-sex couples have been denied the same right to marriage benefits that all heterosexuals have. In those cases, it was not by choice.

Then some kook from the Pacific Justice Institute, an organization that claims to defend “religious freedom, parental rights, and other civil liberties”, chimes in with his two cents:

“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.”

How’s that for logic? Opponents of homosexual marriage seek for the government to actively deny someone the very legal right to marriage that all Americans are supposed to have. This situation, a couple griping that two words aren’t on their marriage license, does not equate to the suppression of or denial of legal rights. Not in the real world, anyway. Someone ought to inform Bradley here of the definition of civil liberties and, um, justice, because he’s been severly misled.

Then there’s the father of the bride, a pastor no less:

Bird’s father, Doug Bird, pastor of Roseville’s Abundant Life Fellowship, said he is urging couples not to sign the new marriage forms, and that he is getting some support from congregants and colleagues at local churches.

“I would encourage you to refuse to sign marriage licenses with ‘Party A’ and ‘Party B,’ ” he wrote in a letter that he sent to them. “If ever there was a time for the people of the United States to stand up and let their voices be heard – this is that time.”

There is just no understanding the Christian mind. What sort of deranged depravity does it take to consider all that America has been through in the past seven years–the attacks on our liberties, the torture of prisoners, the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, the warrantless spying on American citizens, and the other crimes and transgressions of the Bush administration that we may or may not yet know of–less of a worthy cause to stand up against than the absence of the words ‘Bride’ and ‘Groom’ on a marriage license? I shouldn’t be surprised anymore by the behavior of those fine, upstanding, moral Christians, but reading that part of the article really was one of those holy-shit-jaw-dropping moments.

Now the couple find themselves pondering their future:

Bird and Codding say they are trying to figure out what to do next. Bird said she does not know what she will do if she should become ill and need insurance. “I really don’t know,” she said.

How about this: sign the friggin’ form! There are a lot of things I could say on this daft woman’s comment about her future, but I’ll just leave it at that.

At the end of the day, this self-imposed state of unlicensed marriage isn’t going to accomplish anything but to let this couple unserstand what it’s like to live as countless same-sex couples have lived before them (from a legal standpoint, anyway). It may even serve to broaden their small-minded view of the world. Then again, probably not.

Technorati Tags: culture, marriage, religion, mythology, Christians, California