Re: Define "Bride" and "Groom"

1

It's enough to make you wish that "no backsies" were an established legal principle.

I thought it was.


Posted by: Michael | Link to this comment | 07- 2-08 7:36 AM
horizontal rule
2

Justin (pronounced "juh-STEEN") L. McCain, 18, and Antonio E. Blount, 31,

that's not 1/2 + 7! Homos aren't doing it right.


Posted by: Michael | Link to this comment | 07- 2-08 7:41 AM
horizontal rule
3
"Just the awkwardness of the name -- that deputy clerk that waited on them suspected something was amiss, or, actually, a mister," Chief Deputy Clerk Gary Anderson said.
Oy.
Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 07- 2-08 7:59 AM
horizontal rule
4

So McCain's secret black war baby is a gay homosexual? Who dresses as a lady? Oh dear.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 07- 2-08 8:03 AM
horizontal rule
5

You missed the best part!

The marriage might have gone virtually unnoticed had McCain not returned to the Newport News clerk's office in May to apply for an eye-catching name change: Penelopsky Aaryonna Goldberry.

Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 07- 2-08 8:05 AM
horizontal rule
6

It's enough to make you wish that "no backsies" were an established legal principle.

This has been covered before


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 07- 2-08 8:31 AM
horizontal rule
7

marriage license applications in Newport News have been changed to read "male applicant" and "female applicant

Just watch. Next year they'll change it to require specific sets of chromosomes.


Posted by: Populuxe | Link to this comment | 07- 2-08 8:34 AM
horizontal rule
8

I like the bumper sticker I saw this weekend:

Virginia Is For Lovers
(Some Restrictions Apply)


Posted by: Becks | Link to this comment | 07- 2-08 9:14 AM
horizontal rule
9

"What's wrong, Dad?"

"I felt a great disturbance in the Force. It was like a million homosexuals crying out 'I do' in unison. Farewell forever, you are a stranger to me now."


Posted by: Mo MacArbie | Link to this comment | 07- 2-08 9:16 AM
horizontal rule
10

A lesbian and lawyer (same person--they have them now!) I met at a party was telling me that she thinks some form of no backsies will apply to the gay weddings undertaken in California between now and the November election. She's already married in Canada, but she's planning to do it again in CA because she thinks that if the amendment passes, it will invalidate recognition of marriages from other jurisdictions, but will not retroactively invalidate California marriages.

(I think we're going to beat the amendment, Penelopskys or no.)


Posted by: Wrongshore | Link to this comment | 07- 2-08 9:17 AM
horizontal rule
11

It's enough to make you wish that "no backsies" were an established legal principle.

We call it "estoppel," it makes lawyers sounds smarter.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07- 2-08 9:29 AM
horizontal rule
12

11: Bastards! With your secret codes and all that.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 07- 2-08 9:33 AM
horizontal rule
13

7: Just watch. Next year they'll change it to require specific sets of chromosomes.

Yup. Looks like the blood tests are back in.

But do they really want to open up that can of worms? Once they look past the traditional and simple labels of "boys and girls" they are gonna find, to put it in computer terms, a big old complicated snarl of software and hardware and firmware and maybe even re-programmable bios combinations.

They will find what we technology experts have know for years - that standards sound really great but they get complicated and superseded all the time.


Posted by: Tripp the Crazed | Link to this comment | 07- 2-08 9:34 AM
horizontal rule
14

promissory estoppel
equitable estoppel

The Va Supremes recently invalidated the "I-bought-you-a-beer-now-you-have-to-talk-with-me" estoppel.


Posted by: Will | Link to this comment | 07- 2-08 9:37 AM
horizontal rule
15

In Virginia, many county clerks now require a drop-trou component to the marriage application.


Posted by: Will | Link to this comment | 07- 2-08 9:38 AM
horizontal rule
16

13: intersex birth rates are something like 1 in 2000. That's a can of worms for anyone trying to pin down definitions.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 07- 2-08 9:40 AM
horizontal rule
17

154: But that would require probable cause. Where only reasonable suspicion exists, clerks are limited to the stop and frisk.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 07- 2-08 9:42 AM
horizontal rule
18

17:
The absence of visible bulges up top or down below might provide probably cause. The Supreme Court has set that bar very low.


Posted by: Will | Link to this comment | 07- 2-08 9:46 AM
horizontal rule
19

13, 16: Indeed. It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world. I blame The Kinks.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 07- 2-08 9:47 AM
horizontal rule
20

Champagne shouldn't not taste like cherry cola.


Posted by: Will | Link to this comment | 07- 2-08 10:00 AM
horizontal rule
21

20: Originally Coca-Cola, but changed for copyright/trademark reasons. IP terrorism has us all in its clutches (except Tweety).


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 07- 2-08 10:03 AM
horizontal rule
22

except Tweety

And Brad DeLong.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 07- 2-08 10:09 AM
horizontal rule
23

13:

C'mon people! Did no one notice I said "firmware."

It is like I am the only one trying here.

Get those minds down in the gutter where they belong!


Posted by: Tripp the Crazed | Link to this comment | 07- 2-08 10:44 AM
horizontal rule
24

10: I've heard the same thing -- that the anti-same-sex marriage initiative on November's ballot doesn't include language that would invalidate existing marriages.
I don't know if this was an oversight, if they weren't willing to push it that far or if it's something they can't actually do.


Posted by: Magpie | Link to this comment | 07- 2-08 11:08 AM
horizontal rule
25

24 -- The text of the proposed California amendment is simple -- it just says, in full, that "Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." (The "valid or recognized" language is designed to prevent recognition of same sex marriages from other states.).

It's currently unclear whether the amendment, if it passes, will apply to people who get married between now and November, because whether or not it gets applied retroactively is entirely up to the California courts. The best guess of knowledgeable lawyers is that the courts won't apply the amendment retroactively to June/November marriages, but that's only a guess.

Of course, the best thing to do is just to vote down the goddamned amendment. And current polling makes it look like the forces of good have a real shot.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 07- 2-08 12:19 PM
horizontal rule
26

23: Go back to Slashdot!


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 07- 2-08 1:00 PM
horizontal rule
27

Go back to Slashdot!

Speaking of which, as if there weren't already enough reason to love Darcy Burner, check out the teeshirt she's wearing in this photo of the dear woman in front of her partially burned out house. I totally want me one of them.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 07- 2-08 1:49 PM
horizontal rule
28

27: linkeroo, Knecht?


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 07- 2-08 2:01 PM
horizontal rule
29

Oops.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 07- 2-08 2:03 PM
horizontal rule
30

Re: "The court eventually figured out its 'mistake' and nullified the marriage, in addition to updating the paperwork for future applicants: 'Anderson said marriage license applications in Newport News have been changed to read "male applicant" and "female applicant," instead of "bride" and "groom."'"

So the person formerly known as the "bride" is now known as the "male applicant" and the person formerly known as the "groom" is now the "female applicant"? Isn't that a little bit harsh?


Posted by: gnoLeD darB | Link to this comment | 07- 2-08 4:24 PM
horizontal rule
31

"Mom, Dad, this is my lovely female-applicant-to-be."


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 07- 2-08 8:07 PM
horizontal rule
32

Extra gold stars to anyone who shows up at the Newport News clerk's office and says, later, "Well, where it says '[gender] applicant,' I figured that worked for me since I'm in the process of applying for the surgery to become [gender]." Anything to put further stress on the people who feel they need to rules-lawyer gay marriage out of existence.


Posted by: Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 07- 2-08 8:17 PM
horizontal rule
33

32: I think will is closest. Maybe apo. Guys? You down?


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 07- 2-08 8:21 PM
horizontal rule
34

I think will is closest. Maybe apo. Guys? You down?

I originally read this as "I think Will is closet[ed]."


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 07- 3-08 5:28 AM
horizontal rule
35

Stupid Virginia.


Posted by: The Virginian | Link to this comment | 07- 3-08 7:50 PM
horizontal rule