October 27, 2004

PAPERWORK UNFINISHED

Those progressive Canadians! They're so advanced. Too bad "progressive" so often means "bureaucratic crazytime":

Gay couples wanting to get married in Nova Scotia this fall will have to be declared husband and wife at least until the province gets its paperwork finished.

Some of Nova Scotian same-sex couples who fought for the right to be legally married are angry over the terminology.

Don't know why. What else do you call a married couple?

Posted by Tim Blair at October 27, 2004 02:18 AM
Comments

Whadda ya gonna do? I can see it now:

"I now pronounce you Pitcher and Catcher..."

Posted by: mojo at October 27, 2004 at 02:24 AM


Tim, don't tell me you're an anti-gay bigot. I like your blog too much!

Posted by: James C. at October 27, 2004 at 02:37 AM

Spouse and spouse, most likely.

Posted by: alli at October 27, 2004 at 02:38 AM

This is the whole point about gay marriage - to change the language and blur the distinction between men and women.

Posted by: nobody important at October 27, 2004 at 03:00 AM

How about "a married couple"?

Posted by: Sebastian at October 27, 2004 at 03:14 AM

James,

I support gay marriage. Check the archives. My point here is that PC bureaucratic goons can't keep up with this particular trend.

Also, that proponents of gay marriage might not have worked through the complexities of gay-marriage detail.

Posted by: tim at October 27, 2004 at 03:18 AM

Why not just call the bottom the wife? Of course, that doesn't work for lesbians.

Posted by: Zach at October 27, 2004 at 03:21 AM


"I support gay marriage. Check the archives."

Amen. I was afraid I'd have to delete your blog from my list, and then I'd be cut off from Australia!

By the way, as a first time American commentor, let me say thanks for your fantastic blog, and thank your great nation for your continuing support. Long may the Anglosphere alliance continue!

Posted by: James C. at October 27, 2004 at 03:29 AM

Oops. A new victim commenter. Be kind to him, boys... Hey! You in the back! I saw that!

Posted by: Andrea Harris at October 27, 2004 at 03:33 AM

What do we want?

GAY RIGHTS!

When do we want em?

NOW!

Posted by: Jonny at October 27, 2004 at 03:34 AM

Nobody,

The WHOLE point? Devotion has nothing to do with it?

In that case, I'm going to print up some bumper stickers to slap on my gay friends' cars. They'll say, "I'm changing the language! Ask me how!"

Posted by: Joe Geoghegan at October 27, 2004 at 03:55 AM

Hey, James,

Do they make thick hides in latex? If so, get one.

Posted by: Gary at October 27, 2004 at 03:59 AM

I suspect there might be problems even after they change the form.

I suppose a gay male couple would be okay with being pronounced "husband and husband", but for some reason I foresee some lesbian couples complaining about being pronounced "wife and wife", because they view the term "wife" as being some patriarchal womyn-oppressing slur or something.

Posted by: SpoogeDemon at October 27, 2004 at 04:01 AM

You realize since they can't produce children from the marriage, a gay marriage between brother, sisters, or children will be okay... The basis of the 'kissing cousins' law was for the public health.
Under a court challenge it will only end up applying to heterosexual relationships.

Posted by: Joe N. at October 27, 2004 at 04:01 AM

Joe N.,

That's not the only reason for "kissin' cousin" restrictions. Any judge will realize -- or face swift appeal -- that the laws also operate to deny approval to parents or older siblings who might wish to view their child / younger sibling as a potential sexual partner, gay or straight. The younger child is in, shall we say, a very poor bargaining position relative to the older members of his/her family.

It's icky. What's almost as icky is starting an acrimonious debate on Tim's blog, which is usually a fun place, so let's be real civil about our differences of opinion.

Posted by: Joe Geoghegan at October 27, 2004 at 04:30 AM

"Why not just call the bottom the wife? Of course, that doesn't work for lesbians."

Obviously you're not yet sufficiently familiar with the splendid variety of hot girl-on-girl action.

*cough* strap-on *cough*

Posted by: Mike at October 27, 2004 at 04:38 AM

The whole point of gay marriage is changing the language? Ah, yes, the power structures of the Western system derive their hegemony from the signifiers implicit in the structure of linguistic designations for human social organizations, therefore revolutionary reorganizations are only possible by manipulating that structure and destabilizing the linguistic architecture of this basically economically motivated symbolic union.

Gosh, the hideous love child of Jerry Falwell and Noam Chomsky.

And then we have the old GAY MARRIAGE WILL LEAD TO THE LEGALIZING OF UNIONS BETWEEN MEN AND GOATS, DWARVES AND FIAT SPYDERS, LESBIAN FEMINIST XEROX REPAIRPERSONS AND LEATHER MUG SALESMEN FROM RENAISSANCE FESTIVALS, PRIZE-WINNING CHINESE CRESTED SHOWDOGS AND CATHERINE OF ARAGON! BEWARE! TAKE CARE!

Whatever.

That mockery dispensed with, I must add that almost anything Canada does deserves ridicule. Although I am a homosexual man, I prefer that gay unions, while being legally equal, be called gay unions or partnerships or something besides marriages, at least in the language of state. A gay couple would be free to refer to their union as a marriage if they wanted, since it would hold the same legal designations, but in the language of the law it would be called something else. I respect that at this point the word "marriage" connotes a very specific union to most of the world, and there is no reason to alienate people in order to achieve what most of us I suspect want, that is equality in fiscal and legal matters.

And, for the record, "top" and "bottom" for most of us are not fixed designations by any means.

Posted by: goldsmith at October 27, 2004 at 04:49 AM

May I suggest that ancient contract terminology "Party of the First Part" and "Party of the Second Part." No top-or-bottom or pitcher-catcher routine. Might get kind of hairy in introductions though ("This is my party of the second part . . .").

Posted by: Ron at October 27, 2004 at 05:39 AM

Changing the phrase "husband and wife" to something more suited to the union being joined is hardly "changing the language". What? They aren't allowed to write their own marriage vows in Nova Scotia? It would save ever so much paperwork and anxiety.

Posted by: Rebecca at October 27, 2004 at 06:18 AM

LOL! Ah, bureaucracy! One wonders where civilization would find so much comedic relief if bureaucrats became extinct.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at October 27, 2004 at 06:35 AM

Now, what do you call participants in a group marriage. The lawsuits have already begun to fly in the US on restrictions on polygamy(sp?). They are using the same rationale as that which was used in Mass. I think. And I don't mean just the Morman type of polygamy either. And the sex with kids crowd is getting wound up as well. I cannot remember who mentioned not calling it marriage, but I wish we had listened.

Posted by: JEM at October 27, 2004 at 06:48 AM

The plural of spouse is spice.

Posted by: triticale at October 27, 2004 at 07:54 AM


Gary:

"Do they make thick hides in latex? If so, get one."

Hey, I'm a Democrat who supports the invasion of Iraq. If I didn't have a thick hide I'd be dead by now.

In the words of Paul Harvey and Crocodile Dundee: g'day.


Posted by: James C. at October 27, 2004 at 07:58 AM

What else do you call a married couple?

Prisoners!

Heh, heh.

Posted by: Quentin George at October 27, 2004 at 08:51 AM

"GAY MARRIAGE WILL LEAD TO THE LEGALIZING OF UNIONS BETWEEN MEN AND GOATS, DWARVES AND FIAT SPYDERS, LESBIAN FEMINIST XEROX REPAIRPERSONS AND LEATHER MUG SALESMEN FROM RENAISSANCE FESTIVALS,"

I really shouldn't read this blog at work, keyboard and mon. covered in coffee, boss wants to know WTF is going on.

Thanks goldsmith

Posted by: Merlin at October 27, 2004 at 09:13 AM

I've noticed a lot of people replacing "liberal" with "progressive" because "progressive" hasn't acquired all the undesirable connotations yet. (And "progressive" has the bonus of making you sound kinda smart and metro.) Yet, it still means the same old depressing stuff...i.e., "PC bureaucratic goons" taking over your life.

And...what goldsmith said. (Except for the part about being a homosexual man.)

Posted by: Lexine at October 27, 2004 at 10:10 AM

We need have no fears about same-sex marriage in Australia. It will never happen. Two months ago, with bi-partisan support, The Marriage Act (1961) (Cwlth) was amended to state that marriage is the union of a man and and a woman voluntarily entered into for life.

The amendment was specifically intended to prevent overseas same-sex marriage being recgnised in Australia under the 1964 Hague Convention on the Celebration of Recognition of Marriages - one the those unfortunate UN treaties that nearly bit us on the bum.

Posted by: walterplinge at October 27, 2004 at 12:00 PM

Sub and Dom?

Posted by: Paul Johnson at October 27, 2004 at 02:05 PM

Bowler and Batter?

Posted by: cheshirecat at October 27, 2004 at 02:22 PM

Bowler and Batter?

Posted by: cheshirecat at October 27, 2004 at 02:22 PM

I now pronounce you person, person, child, appliance, and farmyard animal. Please save the kissing until I can't see (as I have a weak stomach).

Posted by: Robert at October 27, 2004 at 02:39 PM

Yeah , walterplinge and we should thank John Howard for passing the Act(and the ALP for supporting him, surprise, surprise). Now if we can just stop those pesky lesbians from trying to get IVF on Medicare (insead of going out and getting fucked, the way other women who can physically have kids, do),then things will be perfect.

Posted by: mr magoo at October 27, 2004 at 02:58 PM

Lucky I'm at home and not drowning the work keyboard in coffee. I tend to agree with goldsmith. I have no problems with a civil union arrangement to take care of the financials etc. As a long term married bloke (and someone with reasonably strong religious beliefs), well, that term is simply not appropriate or correct for gay civil unions. It is and has been for millennia, a term for hetero couples linked via special religious and civil ceremonies, vows and arrangements in an arrangement all cultures use to produce and raise kids. Yes, I realise that there are a myriad of forms, and that there are a zillion examples people can use to ask about fairness for left handed red headed lesbians who get lucky with a gay male volunteer friend and a turkey baster. That's beside the point - and a recognised secular civil union would answer most of it in any case and not tick off the Churches. BTW I have no problem with the 1-2% of gays in the community setting up their own Christian church. It would make infinitely more sense that the 'Church" of scientology, for a start! And faith is faith, however the bloke upstairs made you.

The funniest comment today on this thread was from a (shall we say an outrageuosly) gay fellow at work. Good bloke, good worker. He liked pitcher and catcher, said he preferred buggerer and buggeree as a personal preference, and wandered off laughing his head off!

MarkL
Canberra

Posted by: MarkL at October 27, 2004 at 09:09 PM

Why not call them what married couples always call each other? They could take turns being "Useless" and "The old ball and chain".

Posted by: Paul Zrimsek at October 28, 2004 at 01:50 AM

For guy-gays, how about Thing One and Thing Two?

Posted by: Robert Speirs at October 28, 2004 at 04:06 AM