Evangelical Couple Deliberately Joins the Gay Legal Ghetto

living in sin?

legally this couple is not married, therefor, if they are living together or having sex they are committing sins.  Any religious ceremony done by the girl's father doesn't really count to exonerate them from the sin - if it did, then all of those plural marriages "witnessed before G-d" and gay marriages performed by a clergy-person carry the same weight as theirs.

But then again, they've both been married before - have they been widowed or have they selfishly put their own happiness first and gotten divorced?

Typical Repubevangelical hypocrisy

---

by: ol cranky @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 17:27:02 PM CDT

if they're divorced,

then they're adulterers for remarrying.

what gets me about this though is that they are being so reckless with their kids' legal security.  what kind of christian (or parents of any stripe) put quibbling over nomenclature on a form over their kids' well being?

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 17:42:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Exactly.

Just to make a point.  How childish!  I don't think these people should be married at all...or be responsible for children.  They are obviously not qualified.

On the plus side though, they might come out on the other end of this being less anti-gay.  It's like walking a gay person's shoes.  Though, for some reason I doubt they'll think of it that way.

"To be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best day and night to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight and never stop fighting." -E.E. Cummings

---

by: popsiclestand @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 22:51:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

walking on gay shooz

yeah, that possibility crossed my mind too.  i suppose a lot depends on the inconveniences or downright legal emergencies they may face as non married people.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 23:16:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

horsehockey

They won't be more understanding of the legal ghetto gay couples live in. They're Christian whackos. They're not doing this because they want to be more understanding, they're throwing a temper tantrum for publicity. "Waaaaaah, look at us with our non-recognized marriage! Those icky gays made us have gender-neutral marriage licenses! We're not SPECIAL anymore! Waaaaaahh!" Then they'll cast themselves and their children as victims of the anti-christian gay agenda. Meanwhile the rest of us still have to live as second-class citizens in our own country.

I really fucking hate these people.

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 23:29:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

wrong, religious rites count within the religion

and yes, their heads would explode if they were told that their union has the same legal status as a same-sex holy union in a non-marriage state.

Civil marriage doesn't translate to religious marriage - the Catholic Church doesn't recognize perfectly legal (civil law) marriage of divorced and remarried person, or for that matter different-gender never-before-married couple, one of whom (usually the male) is biologically unable to have unassisted penile-vaginal reproductive sex. (obviously this doesn't count postmenopausal women, a large demographic, it just affects the  few para or quadriplegics, transgender or intersex, etc couples).

---

by: NancyP @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 18:57:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

ah but they refuse to separate the two

and they do so willfully.  If they did acknowledge the difference between religious marriage and the social construct and contract known as legal/civil marriage they wouldn't give a fiddler's fart about any of this.

---

by: ol cranky @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 19:50:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree.

That's the whole point of all this marriage exclusion.  They think that a legal contract is the same as a religious rite and they want it written into law.

They can't have their cake and eat it too.

"To be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best day and night to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight and never stop fighting." -E.E. Cummings

---

by: popsiclestand @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 22:54:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

tiny violin

Here's the link to the original Sacramento Bee article.

Actually cracks me up. Usually comments in the schizo part of the state run 50/50 pro/anti equality...this time many more are like "get over yourself".

I love that the Anti-s go on and on about the meaning of the words....ah like the rest of us GLBT citizens haven't been saying this forever?

http://www.sacbee.com/749/stor...

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.

Oh you mean how gay and lesbian couples can't in many places because, hey, they're not married.

Not surprisingly, daddy pastor's church, Abundant Life Fellowship, is on the list of Endorsements on the ProtectMarriage website.  

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 19:18:25 PM CDT

The meaning of the words

I am not disagreeing with anything you said but just wanted to say...

I love that the Anti-s go on and on about the meaning of the words....ah like the rest of us GLBT citizens haven't been saying this forever?

As far as I'm concerned, the reason why words matter is that laws are made out of words. It makes a difference to the execution of the law whether you are "married" or "domestic partnership"ped... It does not make a difference to the execution of the law whether one form recognizing your marriage calls you a "Bride" or a "Party A".

(Though personally I still don't see why they can't just print up some forms with "bride" and "groom" in those spaces if people would really like them for whatever reason. They could make it like with license plates, maybe. They say "Party A" and "Party B" normally, but pay $30 and you can instead get a form that says "bride" or "groom" or "sub" or "dom" or "walrus" or "mongoose" or whatever. I mean hey, why not, it's just paperwork...)

---

by: mcc @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 20:22:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

vocabulary

I think like to enter civil union became "cued" (at least around NJ), maybe entering domestic partnership should be "dipped?"

---

by: avocado @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:26:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

All I know is

If someone came to me and said that they got DPed yesterday, all I'd be able to say is "...impressive?"

---

by: mcc @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:43:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

DPed in California

To get DPed in California you need someone to notarize your form...so I used to say we go "notarized".  The looks people would give me...a very long term relationship and all we could claim was to be "notarized."

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:27:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I was "Party A."

Never been so proud in my life.

---

by: teac @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 20:22:28 PM CDT

What I love...

...is that he's 29 and she's 25, and between them, they have five kids--from a previous marriage.

No wonder they're so worried about "protecting marriage"!

---

by: Darkrose @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 20:42:53 PM CDT

I support the idea

I have straight friends, and have dinner with them and their partners....
I don't mind them except when they get their sick lifestyle in my face or demand special rights.
And Opposite Sex Marriage is just WRONG!

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 21:28:47 PM CDT

Put it back to Bride and Groom,

  And let Same-Sex couple choose which they will be for the paperwork.  But then the Fundies would complain about men being Brides and Grooms being girls.  But we could have a straight Alli to go in and be opposite just for spite too.  I mean this would be just a scream.

 Have their names on the Bride and Groom lines opposite from the norm.  Go to this idots church, ask him to marry them.  All the whole time not telling him as he would assume they are on the straight and narrow.  Only to let it be known during the ceremony they are opposite from the norm.

 But on the seious note, Fuckem if they can't be party A and party B.  I hope they never have to fill out an accident report.  Even on the line that asks for Party A's spouse.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 22:59:33 PM CDT

that is hilarious about accident reports.

i suppose all the state forms changed after the supreme court decision.  how long before they face one of those?

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 23:18:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

She's been violated!

I think it's hysterical that she thinks her rights have been violated.

---

by: ArizonaDave @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 23:45:37 PM CDT

Point of Clarification

I realize these twits aren't trying to be logical, but............

Couldn't they just write in "Bride" next to Party A and "Groom" next to Party B and sign the damn document?  Or put (Bride) or (Groom) after the appropriate signature?

Or move to another state?

---

by: Pollyanna @ Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 23:56:40 PM CDT

Why move?

They could have had their wedding in, let's say, Evangelical Mecca, A.K.A. Focus on the Fascist headquarters in Colorado Springs, and the license they obtained in Colorado would still be legal in California.  I'm sure their licenses still read "Bride" and "Groom".  Problem solved!  

BTW, I think their shirts should more appropriately read "Dumbass A" and "Dumbass B".

---

by: Jon Michaels @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:12:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is a good point.

Why DIDN'T they just go to another state to get a marriage license that says Bride and Groom?

Gay people go to other states for more important reasons than wording on some stupid form.

These dipshits are really making a bad case of the anti-gay marriage folks.  So because a form doesn't say what they want it to say, they are voluntarily not getting married???  But gay people can't get married at all in most states, nevermind what's on the form?

And this is supposed to be some sort of protest?

That's like racists in the 60's refusing to eat at a restaurant because it took down the sign that said "Whites Only".  Stupid.

"To be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best day and night to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight and never stop fighting." -E.E. Cummings

---

by: popsiclestand @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:44:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

why find a workable solution when

you can endanger your children and have 5 seconds of infamy?

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 10:43:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

EVEN BETTER

This is also like the big to do about "Happy Holidays" vs. "Merry Christmas".

This is all about entitlement.

White, Christian, Straight people have enjoyed being at the top of the heep, making all the rules.  So they're used to deference.  They're used pinkish/sand colored crayons labeled "flesh".  They're used to band-aids that more closely match white-people's skin tone.  They're used to "God" referring to the white Jesus Christianity.  They're used to all sorts of things that tell them they are the "norm" the regulars, the expected average person on the planet.

Now that we have a more equal society, it doesn't make sense to only market your goods to one group, even if they are the majority.  There are several dozen holidays that happen between Halloween and January 2nd, so "Happy Holidays" makes sense.  BUT some people used to their priviledged place, just can't stand seeing anything other than "Merry Christmas"  they feel inclusion, umbrella terms are insults to them personally.

And thus we have these two shlubs, who feel personally offended because they're no longer being catered to specifically.  The this form, of all things, is generic and doesn't tell them "here's your special place in society, enjoy it!"

---

by: PunkZanyJ @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:59:31 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

How about

"Breeder A" and "Breeder B"?

Hee.


Cisgender. Because "Genetic" is so 2006.

---

by: Denabeth @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:27:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Preferably the latter option.

---

by: onthesea @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:15:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

that's what they did

I read the article in the Bee. They wrote Bride and Groom in themselves, and had the license rejected for it being altered. They were asked to submit a non-altered one, and refused.

---

by: one jewish dyke @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 08:07:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

My heart just bleeds for them.

No, really. It does.

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 23:33:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Etymology of "Bride" ...

The term [bride] used to mean 'daughter-in-law', as newly married women at one time moved into the husband's family home. Further back, the word possibly comes from the Teutonic word for 'cook'.
Source: http://www.answers.com/bride

~ Mark

Mark D Worthen PsyD
Park City, Utah
Culture and Current Affairs Blog  

---

by: mworthen @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:17:10 AM CDT

How about if the form says...

..."Cunt" and "Prick"?  Specially printed just for them.  Would that suit?

If they're going to focus so obsessively on the heterogeneity of their organs, let's just cut to the chase.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:27:17 AM CDT

Quick, Hurry, someone go to public records in Arizona,,,

  And look at John and Cindy McCains Marriage Licence.  It just might read Cunt and Prick.  I think Johnny has called her that a few times, and maybe that is were it came from.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:33:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

They haven't ghettoized themselves

not the way gay and lesbian couples are. She can announce herself as his wife and she'll be accepted and believed. The social recognition will be there, even if the legal recognition isn't.  

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing

---

by: QueerInSoCal @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 06:51:25 AM CDT

I hope their kids' school

principal reads the paper...  But then, maybe they are home schooled.  You're probably right about the social recognition thing.  Where they'll run into trouble are governmental and financial matters like inheritance and insurance.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 10:47:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I can't wait

to see a follow up on this when tax time rolls around.

"Yes, Party B, I see that you have filed jointly with Party A, but we have no record of your marriage. We're going to have to ask you to come in for an audit."


watashi no yomeiri wa doko desu ka

---

by: belfrieboi @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:40:46 AM CDT

what rights are being violated here?

Bride and groom is for the ceremony.  The license is a legal contract, Part A and Party B make perfect sense.

I'm sorry but let's compare the two:

Complete legal omission by the government.  Alternately a second-class "domestic partnership" that is not fully equal to the well understood institution of marriage.  Legal/social confusion/limbo for both spouses and their children.

vs.

Being called Party A and Party B(instead of bride and groom - social terms) on a form designed for all couples in CA.

Oh yes, please roll back civil protections for gays, the straight folks just can't adjust to Party A and B.  It's an insult, an outrage!  A violation of rights.

Except it's not.  ALL Couples in CA are now Party A&B.  Not just these two lunkheads.  If they've got a problem with the form, fine, but refusing to sign a form because the phrasing is vague does not qualify as harm.

Should I be mad that my lease refers to me as "Lesee"?  I prefer to be called a "tenant" or "renter" or just "Jason" if that's alright!

By the way, since we're splitting hairs shouldn't it be "husband" and "wife" istead of "Bride" and "Groom"?  Don't you cease to be "bride and groom" once the wedding ceremony/day is over with?  

---

by: PunkZanyJ @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:47:55 AM CDT

wait a second, wait a second....

They were previously married???

that's a total sin.  They're LIVING a sinful lifestyle!

(christians, please correct me)

It is my understanding that divorce is only legal in the case of adultery, BUT re-marriage is forbidden regardless of divorce or death.  Correct?

---

by: PunkZanyJ @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:14:37 PM CDT

by many interpretations

they are now adulterers.  remember the "let no man put asunder" part of their marital pacts with god?  yeah well, they ignored that part and are now adulterers because they are living with someone other than the person they told god was their spouse.

my dad is an american baptist minister (retired).  a while back i asked him how, if divorce and remarriage was forbidden in the bible, the am. baptists started condoning divorce and re-marriage a few decades age (use to be forbidden in the sect).  he said quite simply because enough clergy wanted to divorce and re-marry.  amazing how the lusts of clergy cause major reinterpretations of "the word of god", isn't it?

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:36:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Shhhhhhhh

Hey, look over there!  It's a couple of sinful queers!  Abomination!

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 16:10:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My guess: couple will get license after the election

no matter what the outcome. Pastor is playing politics and wants publicity now - daughter and son-in-law are just going along, with the understanding that it's temporary and that everyone will forget them after November.

---

by: NancyP @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 16:27:59 PM CDT

And with a wink and a nod

Everyone will consider them "married" because they are opposite sexs.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 17:27:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Do you suppose

They'll end up using that spare license already filled out but cast aside:
Groom:  Charles Crist
Bride:  Whatwashernameagain?

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 17:36:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Groom: Charles Crist

Bride: Party A

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 23:19:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]