Kevin And Don Respond To Being Self Loathing

Looking back at their journey from the Stonewall Democratic Club to Log Cabin Republicans, they claim it was one that was actually started by the democrats. After being told that marriage as not a priority on the agenda in 1995, they became disillusioned with the DEMS. For a decade they felt like they did not belong until they met the republicans of the Log Cabin Republican Club and discovered they too shared a dream of marriage equality. This blog is now a digital time capsule of their time as Republicans and moderated by a friend and supporter.

Friday, June 20, 2008

Party "A" & Party "B": The Friday Morning Quarterback

I pulled this excerpt out of an article that ran in the June 20 Sacramento Bee (see my comment below):

In Sacramento County , about 170 couples took out marriage licenses on Tuesday and Wednesday. Of those, at least 133 were gay or lesbian couples – based on analysis of their first names. At least 26 were presumed to be heterosexual couples.

For about a dozen of the licenses – with all due respect to Dusty and Robye – it was anybody’s guess which gender the couples were.

This guessing game is the result of the state Supreme Court’s May 15 decision that made same-sex marriage legal, effective Monday. Under the ruling, the California Department of Health, whose vital records office maintains marriage forms, did away with all terms identifying gender.

Instead of “bride” and “groom,” those tying the knot are now simply referred to as “Party A” and “Party B.”

“The data geek in me is absolutely frustrated that we can’t actually determine how many same-sex couples get married,” said UCLA’s Gates. “Yet the other side of me totally gets it, that marriage is just marriage.”

“No big deal,” said Ward Connerly, the former University of California regent who has no use for boxes that categorize people.

Connerly led a failed 2003 crusade for a “racial privacy” initiative to strip racial identifiers from all government forms.

He has the same objection to the notion of collecting data on gender. “I don’t know why the government needs to gather that information,” Connerly said.

He plans to vote against the November ballot measure that would amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

“I don’t think the government needs to know,” he said. “I don’t know why the public needs to know. It’s not their life, it’s not their business.”

Comment.

Scenario: On. Nov. 4, let’s say for discussion purposes the anti-gay ballot measure that says marriage is between a man and a woman is approved by voters. At first glance, because my partner and myself are men who plan on exercising our right to bet married in Massachesutts, our marriage would be declared invalid by state of California . But, when our friends, George and Brad filled their our marriage license application in West Hollywood on Tuesday, George filled out Party A section and Brad filled out Party B section. Nowhere on the form did they say they were men, or did they say they were women, for that matter. So, if the government on Nov. 5 sends them a letter saying therr marriage is no longer valid, how does it know they are men? How would the state know to onform Don and myself that we are no longer married, especaily if we re-deed our home as maried men? Wouldn’t it be a witch hunt for the government on Nov. 5 to start demanding that those who married using the Party A/Party B forms declare their genders? Or as to out of state marriaed refuse to do so? What if all of use refused to declare our genders, saying our genders are PROTECTED BY THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY THAT WAS NOT AMENDED and therefore not any business of the government? Well, I could go on and on. Even man/woman couples beginning on Tuesday are now filling out Party A and Party B — no longer, bride and groom.