skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This blog is intended to be an extension of the NYC Lab School's sociology class. Post comments, articles, rants, and links to all things sociological! Discuss. Debate. Enjoy.
2 comments:
Towards the middle of the article it says, "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."
I am one of those "some." Whether or not you are called bride or groom or Party A or Party B is, to me, insignificant. If I were going to commit myself to a person in the form of marriage I would not be concerned in my legal title. The other legal benefits to marriage are more significant in that it is a money/health issue, but your "name" as the state sees it should not be something worth fighting for.
Or at least thats what I think, does any one else feel differently?
I agree, towards the end of the article, they stated that they feel like a bride and a groom (as if their shirts didn't say it for them), and that should be enough. If they feel like a bride and a groom, then what does it matter what it says on a little piece of paper? Seriously, "what's in a name?".
I don't think they realize what an impact the "Party A","Party B" titles have had on the state of california. It seems to me that they're only thinking about themeselves and what makes them happy; it's kind of selfish.
Maybe as a compromise they have have Bride/Groom for both parties and then you can circle which you'd like to be identified as. Like, Party A: Bride/Groom (circle appropriate choice).
I guess since I'm not a "traditionalist," I don't see what they're fussing about.
Post a Comment