Only they ARE “bride and groom”. Nobody’s stopping them calling themselves that. Nobody’s forcing them to use the words “Party A” and “Party B” in anything but the little piece of paper that nobody will ever see again.

No, but the legal document that gives their marriage legitimacy is written in a way they find objectionable. I just don’t see why the state would need to frame the document that way. It would be just as simple to put a couple of blanks on the page or to use the names of individuals. I mean, I like seeing bigots frustrated as much as the next guy, but this just seems unnecessary.

At what point does it become acceptable for them to take away other peoples’ rights simply because they don’t like the wording on the form? I don’t give a flying damn if they find that “personally repugnant”, that still doesn’t give them some kind of right to be pandered to like you’re suggesting.

Where, exactly, did I talk about taking away anyone’s rights or pandering to any specific party? My original suggestion was to do away with any labels for the parties on the contract and just let whoever is filling it out put in whatever they please. That would seem to me to cover the bases well enough and give people the choice to define themselves. In this case it happens to be a couple of assholes trying to cause a change other than what they actually claim. Still, even stopped clocks are right twice a day.

No, that was because the civil unions version of “separate-but-equal” was never equal.

No, it was never equal, at least partly because the words meant something. Even if a system was developed that was perfectly equal in every way except that same sex partnerships were called “civil unions” and opposite sex partnerships were called “marriage” I think a lot of people would object (I know I do). I’d rather people were able to decide for themselves how they will be identified.

It’s quite disingenuous of you to suggest that a couple of bigots being “repulsed” by the new wording of the form is somehow equal to GLBTs fighting for real marriage equality.

Equal? No, of course not. But this isn’t a competition. I’m not really interested in playing oppression Olympics. Marriage rights are vitally important, ideally I’d like to see virtually no restrictions on marriage, but part of that is the right to decide one’s own place in the world. A small part of that agency is deciding how one will be defined. No, it isn’t as important as the basic right, but that doesn’t mean that its an illegitimate concern.

Second, a marriage license is a legal contract facilitated by the state.

Which would seem to be the root of the marriage problem all together. I don’t really see why the state needs to be in the business of blessing unions between people. The only reasonable argument I can think of are the legal benefits of marriage (health insurance, inheritance, tax status, medical visitation, etc), but I don’t see why those things couldn’t be sorted out with contracts that have nothing to do with the state deciding who gets to commit to one another and under what terms and circumstances.

It’s perfectly reasonable for the state to make that document gender-neutral, the way that many, many other legal documents are.

Wouldn’t an absence of terms be the most neutral possible, allowing those entering into the marriage to decide how they will define themselves and their union?

Since when is “Party A” on a contract personally repugnant?

I don’t really care why or how reasonable someone’s concerns are. Making those kinds of value judgments is how we ended up defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I feel that the government ought to avoid those kinds of problems entirely and do the minimum necessary to protect the liberty of everyone. To me that means allowing any number of people of any number of genders to define themselves in any way they see fit.

Georgia state employees are not the brightest lightbulbs (if you get my meaning).

Yeah, absolutely nothing oppressive at all about having the state define your union to a partner in a way that you find personally repugnant. They might be fighting the fight for the wrong reason, but theres no reason they SHOULDN’T be able to be “bride and groom” if they want to be “bride and groom.”

First, as Jadelyn said, they ARE bride and groom. Second, a marriage license is a legal contract facilitated by the state. It’s perfectly reasonable for the state to make that document gender-neutral, the way that many, many other legal documents are. Since when is “Party A” on a contract personally repugnant? I hope they aren’t planning on signing any other contracts or legal documents anytime soon…

To some of the bloggers here laughing at the expense of this couple should really bare in mind that not all State and local municipalities recognize each and every legal document produced from somewhere else. I can understand the predicament should they move to another state. Even my marriage license of 25 years is not guarantee. A good example is when my husband and I moved from Michigan to Georgia.

Uh, actually, if you’re straight your marriage license is a guarantee. See the full faith and credit clause, which same-sex couples aren’t entitled to under federal law.

They might be fighting the fight for the wrong reason, but theres no reason they SHOULDN’T be able to be “bride and groom” if they want to be “bride and groom.”

Only they ARE “bride and groom”. Nobody’s stopping them calling themselves that. Nobody’s forcing them to use the words “Party A” and “Party B” in anything but the little piece of paper that nobody will ever see again. They can call themselves bride and groom all day long, in the ceremony, at the reception, whatever. At what point does it become acceptable for them to take away other peoples’ rights simply because they don’t like the wording on the form? I don’t give a flying damn if they find that “personally repugnant”, that still doesn’t give them some kind of right to be pandered to like you’re suggesting.

Thats why so many people simply aren’t willing to tolerate anything other than full marriage rights, not civil unions or some other kind of separate-but-equal commitment.

No, that was because the civil unions version of “separate-but-equal” was never equal. It’s quite disingenuous of you to suggest that a couple of bigots being “repulsed” by the new wording of the form is somehow equal to GLBTs fighting for real marriage equality.

Maybe these privileged doofuses are just confused about what this legal document means. Hint: it does not require you to call yourselves/one another “Party A” and “Party B.” In fact, you never have to pay any mind to the phrases “Party A” and “Party B” ever again. It will have no bearing on your relationship or your wedding ceremony whatsoever.

There is absolutely nothing oppressive about this.

Yeah, absolutely nothing oppressive at all about having the state define your union to a partner in a way that you find personally repugnant. They might be fighting the fight for the wrong reason, but theres no reason they SHOULDN’T be able to be “bride and groom” if they want to be “bride and groom.”

For a lot of people a marriage is one of the biggest events in their lives, full of social and religious meaning. The fight for gay marriage isn’t just about getting equal legal benefits, its also about giving everyone access to the same human connection and subjective experience. Thats why so many people simply aren’t willing to tolerate anything other than full marriage rights, not civil unions or some other kind of separate-but-equal commitment.