Friday, May 23, 2008

California License to Deceive

The anti-gay, anti-marriage equality donkeys are braying again. This time they are in California and this time the sounds seem fainter than ever.

As predictable after the years of poppycock and baseless alarms in Massachusetts, the same sorts are pulling the same (failed) maneuvers out West. Of course, the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund is trying to get a stay beyond the California ruling's 30-day effective date. They likely have no standing in the case and would have to scramble to find a surrogate or convince the state to fight it. It's not likely.

Meanwhile, they are trying the same Henny Penny squawking as we heard here. Consider of Vice President Tom McClusky the Family Research Council, waving the cartoonish polygamy flag. He responded to the fact that the state would have to hustle to change "BRIDE" and "GROOM" on the marriage application form with wails of despair.
"If the definition is seen to be so fluid, where do you stop? I can imagine the discussion in a couple of years of how many people should be included. Why is it wrong for two men and a woman to get married? I don't want to see the top of THAT wedding cake."
Let's assume that this doesn't really relate to his fear of baked goods. Someone might make him aware that states fine-tune and update forms constantly, every year. This has a time constraint, but not outrageously so. Also, we'll be holding Olympic ice skating trials in Death Valley before California or even Massachusetts issues it's polygamous marriage licenses. Zero of the dire predictions these clowns made for civil unions and same-sex marriages has occurred. That's fewer than one.





Pimp My Form

Examine the horrors visited on the state in having to edit this particular form. See the signature part above and click on it for a larger view. Go here to see the whole form.

It's a bit of fun for the press to play with Groom becoming Party A or the like. Unfortunately for the anti folk, very few can even pretend that this is a big deal. In fact, to a nation that fills out tax, driver's license and other forms, this is in the so-what class.

The one page form does have:
  • Column headings reading GROOM'S PERSONAL DATA and BRIDE'S PERSONAL DATA
  • Boxes for Name of Groom, Name of Bride, Groom's Address, Bride's Address
  • Signature box with SIGNATURE OF GROOM, SIGNATURE OF GROOM and a statement beginning WE THE UNDERSIGNED, AN UNMARRIED MAN AND UNMARRIED WOMAN...
  • Lines for phone number and the date starting with GROOM and BRIDE
What's the fix? First comes a brief discussion of the replacement phrase (or looking at an SSM or civil-union state's form). Then a two-minute search-and-replace operation in Word follows with a one minute proof-reading.

Give it a rest, fundies.

Redefining?

To the important fact, we must constantly repeat that it is the anti-marriage equality folk who are trying to redefine marriage everywhere. Marriage in this country, in every state in this country, is a civil contract. Those extremists want to conflate the civil side with various religious rituals and blessings. They want a theocratic veneer to cover, or as they say "protect," marriage.

The redefine-marriage lie is the catchphrase of these clowns. Never let them get away with it. Gently or stridently, by your nature and mood, speak up or write out when that arises. It is the government that authorizes couples to marry, issues licenses, records and files signed ones, and if necessary, grants a divorce.

People marry under the authority of the state, not anyone's religious book or church. Adding personal religious wording to civil statutes is redefining marriage. I don't approve of it. Couples should feel free to add the crowd-pleasing rituals, but those aren't what makes them legally married.

Tags: , , , , , ,

2 comments:

Queers United said...

they use all these scary terms but they are the ones who are anti-family, anti-marriage
http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com

Ryan Adams said...

Sheesh, you're a LeftyBlogs best seller... there were more clicks on this one according to leftyblogs than any of the recent mass posts. I guess people are just married to marry in massachusetts =p

With comments like, "Let's assume that this doesn't really relate to his fear of baked goods" (LOL), it's easy to see why. Mike, you crack me up.

I'm glad you share my thoughts on this, though... there's absolutely, positively no chance the court will stay their decision. And, as long as the state of California is able to see how nothing changes once glbt people are allowed to marry, there's no way it loses at the ballot. Especially when Team Homophobia is worried about what's on top of the cake..

UpTweet