This is really, really silly. I hope that this won't catch on elsewhere just because it would make me lose faith in humanity (via PZ Meyers):
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.
They refuse to get married because a state contract refers to them as equals? Do they go through every state form they fill out and look for equally evil gender-neutral language?
We've had more than a few posts here on TBP about the meaning of marriage and what it implies when the government says that specific conjugal relationships are more valid than other conjugal relationships or non-conjugal relationships.
The idea that same-sex couples getting married changes the institution of marriage significantly isn't very convincing, but it is a product of a change in marriage that happened decades ago, when legally the institution stopped being about enforcing gender roles and started being a means for two people to live together.
This couple seems convinced that their marriage is about specific gender roles, and if the government doesn't tell them who they are, they simply don't want to participate in the public sphere.
And, like the authoritarian subjects social conservatives are, they see it as a violation of their rights if the government doesn't define their gender roles for them:
And Rachel Bird described her position as "personal - not religious."
"We just feel that our rights have been violated," she said.
To some, the couple's stand may seem frivolous. But others believe "bride" and "groom" are terms that are too important for the state to set aside.
"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."
Um, that's just dumb. This couple chose not to get married, so the impact was created just by them.
Unsurprisingly, this probably has a lot to do with the father of the
Person A bride:
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."
Well, anything that reduces the number of people getting married would make me happy as a Radical Homosexual Activist, so go for it. But don't come crying to the rest of us when you find out that not signing marriage licenses that you don't like leads to you not being married.