Some people are ridiculous. If they had a church wedding, then they got to be called whatever they want there. The marriage license isn't meant to be warm and fuzzy, it's a freakin' legal document.
Further, for the record, I'm pretty sure this is the same state that had to relabel and re-jargonize all machines with multiple HD's, because it would be inappropriate to refer to them as "master" and "slave" drives.
Also, on a more serious note, I love how these "proponents of traditional marriage" are in their late twenties and both already divorced. Maybe their unrealistic expectations extend to more than the government.
The only part I think is wrong with the county's reaction is this:
On Sept. 3, the couple received a letter from the Placer County Clerk-Recorder Registrar of Voters informing them that their license did not comply with California law and that the state did not accept licenses that had been altered. The couple had 10 days to complete a duplicate form.
I think it's kind of silly that because they wrote in "bride" and "groom" that their marriage is essentially invalidated. Who gives a shit what they wrote in? They still wrote their names on the lines designated for Party A and Party B.
Outside of that, if they want bride and groom, they can go get married in one of the other many, many, many states that do not recognize equal rights for all citizens.
The thing is, once you accept one alteration, then you have to demarcate what's an "acceptable" alteration and what's not. Then you're stuck either giving "bride and groom" special status again or accepting "pimp and ho" on your legal documents, or having a huge costly debate on which terms are and aren't acceptable. It's also potentially problematic for quick-reads and scans... though I can't really make that argument too well.
Obviously, what's acceptable and not is pretty common sense - but you can't legislate or regulate common sense, so you have to be pretty much black and white - no alteration of legal documents accepted, period.
It's not like they retyped the thing and filled it out. They wrote it in. When the clerk then goes to enter the information into the computer, they could have ignored the "bride" and "groom." (or, "pimp and ho" or "dom and sub" or "ball and chain") If the couple had marked out the words "party b" and "party a," sure, that's changing a legal document. I don't believe that adding words that could have been safely ignored and would not have changed the purpose or function of the document should render it illegal.
The forms still uphold the law, and that's what should matter. Not whether or not the relationship has been declared MF, MM, or FF by the people filling out the form.
The problem is, again, people at the grade of data entry and rubberstamping don't get to decide what additions to a legal document can be "safely ignored", and you don't get a long career in civil service by ignoring the rules, even when it makes sense to do so. Likewise, I'm not so sure what's being typed up, what's being filed away, and what's being scanned for reference these days - when that document is blurry, the extra text might really be a pain to the reader.
And, frankly, if that field is there for a name, that's what's supposed to go in that field. If your name isn't David Groom, Groom doesn't go there. If your name is David William Groom, or particularly John Henry Bride, you probably don't want the clerk too ready to ignore those words. Stupid as it sounds, in a nation of 300 million, that's not a trivial case.
In the end, it's potentially confusing information that doesn't matter. They can be the bride and groom in their ceremony, and on the day of their wedding, without altering the document.
I work in the public sector, and the people I work with at the grade of data entry and rubberstamping do have the ability to think critically and would be able to handle a little bit of leeway on what is acceptable and what is not if the law allowed it. I understand why the county clerk's office did what they did. I just think it is more trouble than it is worth when the couple's intent was clear.
Barring of course, the chance that some sort of disaster that would destroy the piece of paper beyond all recognition so much so that it would take an FBI lab to determine that his last name, was not, in fact, Groom. Oh, the horrors to so many if there would be any confusion as to his last name in the event that the only thing left was a poor copy of that piece of paper. =)
Again - "if the law allowed it." I'm certainly not trying to imply that the people in the position lack the ability1 - rather, I'm saying that in most bureaucracies, they'd lack the authority - they don't get to decide, not they can't decide. The one constant complaint I hear from people stuck in the front lines of any major organization is that the best course is obvious with common sense, but it's one you're not allowed to take under the regulations. From state employees (and I've known quite a few working in the capitol complex), it's magnified tenfold.
And all I'm saying is this: Letting these twits write in Bride/Groom provides no valuable data, at all, to anyone, ever. It adds no value to allow it. It does not matter to the state in the least. The only change that can come from doing it is a negative one. You're talking to a man who gets the wrong name on half his bills and bank statements etc, because the spelling isn't common and people mistype it without bothering to check, whose employer had his social security number wrong for years because he wrote the numerals European-style instead of American-style once. You cannot tell me that cramming useless information into a form field won't have a negative impact eventually. There's no good reason to allow people to cram it in, and a decent reason not to allow it. That's all I'm saying.
I think looking at this form and going "Eh, there's crap on here that shouldn't be, reject it and they can send a clean one tomorrow" was the perfectly logical option, same as would be done on any other document. For the couple getting it to go "ZOMG, WE ARE BEING OPPRESSED" is such a ridiculous overreaction that no one should have anticipated it, and I'm specifically glad it's not being caved to, personally. That's obviously a matter of opinion, and I am notably prone to schadenfreude, but still.
1 - Admittedly, on sober reflection, the section about Will Groom and John Bride might give that impression. I'd rather meant to imply that it would be an easy thing to cock up moving through a stack of documents or working under pressure - a natural mistake to make if you're allowing folks to add in little commentaries to their legal documents. Again, my simple, 4-letter last name gets screwed up a lot even when it's clearly printed all on its lonesome. I don't find it hard to believe that extra visual noise ups the ante.
I work at my state's capitol complex, actually. :) One of the issues I deal with a few times a week are employees entered into one of our databases more than once under two different socials (due to a miskey during one of those entries). And! My last name is a common last name in my area with a weird spelling due to a typo a few generations back. My name is misspelled everywhere, including my tax receipts, and just yesterday, I had to use those receipts at the DMV to renew my car registration. I am perfectly aware of the confusion and aggravation associated with these things.
I did not suggest that cramming useless information into a form field can't have a negative impact. I said in this specific case that it would be really unlikely, because I believe what they put in to be benign as their intent was clear.
Further, with regard to government workers, I said: "...would be able to handle a little bit of leeway..."
I'm not sure if I was unclear there, but I used "would be" intending to imply that if they had been given that authority, they have the judgment skills to make good decisions. I know the lower level peons don't have the authority to make such judgment calls, even without you enlightening me.
I am done with this conversation. I accepted your condescension at first as just a knee-jerk reaction, but it's sort of grown to the point where you're talking to me as if I've lived in a box and had no experience with How the World Really Works. You are just going to have to accept that someone way out there in the internet understands why they had to reject the form but still thinks it was silly and needless when the intent was perfectly clear.
Well, I'm sorry for the condescension. My online tone needs a lot of work, but somehow, over the years, I haven't learned to be explicit without sounding like an ass.
The reply you gave gave me the impression that you thought I was saying "lower level peons" weren't smart enough to make these decisions, which would be rude as hell, and I thought that was a source of anger, so I was trying to be really explicit about what I was trying to say. It wasn't a matter of "enlightening" you, it was a matter of "no, really, I'm not attacking government workers, here, I know these people." People who respond to what they think I'm saying instead of what I'm saying is one of my kneejerks. Bad execution on my part, I guess. Anyway, topic dropped, apologies.
Honestly, I can admit it was a bit git-ish of me right from the start, jumping in in the first place. I can see the condescension, to a degree, in severe retrospect. Hindsight, etc. Sorry I started trouble on your journal, bud.
First of all, I like how they took the time to get t-shirts that say "bride" and "groom" for this article.
Also: "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."
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
*GASP*
Further, for the record, I'm pretty sure this is the same state that had to relabel and re-jargonize all machines with multiple HD's, because it would be inappropriate to refer to them as "master" and "slave" drives.
no subject
And then rule 34. Oops.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
"I hate being called 'Applicant' on forms too! I always just cross out 'Applicant' and write 'Religious Nut' and then write my name."
Not mention the awesome quote from the Bride - "'We just feel that our rights have been violated,' she said."
Y'know, the 1.5th Amendment Right to Be Called What You Want on Forms.
no subject
On Sept. 3, the couple received a letter from the Placer County Clerk-Recorder Registrar of Voters informing them that their license did not comply with California law and that the state did not accept licenses that had been altered. The couple had 10 days to complete a duplicate form.
I think it's kind of silly that because they wrote in "bride" and "groom" that their marriage is essentially invalidated. Who gives a shit what they wrote in? They still wrote their names on the lines designated for Party A and Party B.
Outside of that, if they want bride and groom, they can go get married in one of the other many, many, many states that do not recognize equal rights for all citizens.
no subject
Obviously, what's acceptable and not is pretty common sense - but you can't legislate or regulate common sense, so you have to be pretty much black and white - no alteration of legal documents accepted, period.
no subject
The forms still uphold the law, and that's what should matter. Not whether or not the relationship has been declared MF, MM, or FF by the people filling out the form.
no subject
And, frankly, if that field is there for a name, that's what's supposed to go in that field. If your name isn't David Groom, Groom doesn't go there. If your name is David William Groom, or particularly John Henry Bride, you probably don't want the clerk too ready to ignore those words. Stupid as it sounds, in a nation of 300 million, that's not a trivial case.
In the end, it's potentially confusing information that doesn't matter. They can be the bride and groom in their ceremony, and on the day of their wedding, without altering the document.
no subject
Barring of course, the chance that some sort of disaster that would destroy the piece of paper beyond all recognition so much so that it would take an FBI lab to determine that his last name, was not, in fact, Groom. Oh, the horrors to so many if there would be any confusion as to his last name in the event that the only thing left was a poor copy of that piece of paper. =)
no subject
And all I'm saying is this: Letting these twits write in Bride/Groom provides no valuable data, at all, to anyone, ever. It adds no value to allow it. It does not matter to the state in the least. The only change that can come from doing it is a negative one. You're talking to a man who gets the wrong name on half his bills and bank statements etc, because the spelling isn't common and people mistype it without bothering to check, whose employer had his social security number wrong for years because he wrote the numerals European-style instead of American-style once. You cannot tell me that cramming useless information into a form field won't have a negative impact eventually. There's no good reason to allow people to cram it in, and a decent reason not to allow it. That's all I'm saying.
I think looking at this form and going "Eh, there's crap on here that shouldn't be, reject it and they can send a clean one tomorrow" was the perfectly logical option, same as would be done on any other document. For the couple getting it to go "ZOMG, WE ARE BEING OPPRESSED" is such a ridiculous overreaction that no one should have anticipated it, and I'm specifically glad it's not being caved to, personally. That's obviously a matter of opinion, and I am notably prone to schadenfreude, but still.
1 - Admittedly, on sober reflection, the section about Will Groom and John Bride might give that impression. I'd rather meant to imply that it would be an easy thing to cock up moving through a stack of documents or working under pressure - a natural mistake to make if you're allowing folks to add in little commentaries to their legal documents. Again, my simple, 4-letter last name gets screwed up a lot even when it's clearly printed all on its lonesome. I don't find it hard to believe that extra visual noise ups the ante.
no subject
I did not suggest that cramming useless information into a form field can't have a negative impact. I said in this specific case that it would be really unlikely, because I believe what they put in to be benign as their intent was clear.
Further, with regard to government workers, I said: "...would be able to handle a little bit of leeway..."
I'm not sure if I was unclear there, but I used "would be" intending to imply that if they had been given that authority, they have the judgment skills to make good decisions. I know the lower level peons don't have the authority to make such judgment calls, even without you enlightening me.
I am done with this conversation. I accepted your condescension at first as just a knee-jerk reaction, but it's sort of grown to the point where you're talking to me as if I've lived in a box and had no experience with How the World Really Works. You are just going to have to accept that someone way out there in the internet understands why they had to reject the form but still thinks it was silly and needless when the intent was perfectly clear.
no subject
The reply you gave gave me the impression that you thought I was saying "lower level peons" weren't smart enough to make these decisions, which would be rude as hell, and I thought that was a source of anger, so I was trying to be really explicit about what I was trying to say. It wasn't a matter of "enlightening" you, it was a matter of "no, really, I'm not attacking government workers, here, I know these people." People who respond to what they think I'm saying instead of what I'm saying is one of my kneejerks. Bad execution on my part, I guess. Anyway, topic dropped, apologies.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Also: "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."
LOL, YES, THIS MYTH IS COMPLETELY DEBUNKED.
no subject
Our apologies....
We can't find the page you requested in this location.
The story may have moved or expired."
What was the article? Is there another copy elsewhere I can view?
no subject