ThoughtPolice's blog

So, my neighbors to the east in Sacramento have this gem of a story: Couple fight gender-neutral language in wedding license.

The couple's argument is pretty ridiculous. They claim to have had their rights violated by the language on a government form. California marriage licenses and forms now state "Party A" and "Party B," instead of "Bride" and "Groom." The couple claims that this wording prevents them from calling themselves "Bride" and "Groom" - there's no law preventing such references. In conversation and during the ceremony, you can call yourselves "Supreme Commander of the Galactic Navy" and "Xhasdme" for all the state cares.

Among the "violations" and "injury" felt:
Bird and Codding have refused to complete the new forms, a stand that has already cost them. Because their marriage is not registered with the state, Bird cannot sign up for Codding's medical benefits or legally take his name.

Great, so this couple is voluntarily imposing restrictions on themselves. They're choosing to experience the discrimination same-sex couples have had for decades (no medical benefits, no legal recognition of their relationship, etc.) and crying foul. Utterly ridiculous.

Regardless of your views on same-sex marriage, I hope you can recognize that this is no more than a political ploy to "disprove" the notion that same-sex marriage never hurt anyone. There's no violation of rights here - the new language increases the rights of citizens.

With all of the bipartisan focus on how well Sarah and Bristol can be mothers, and all of the activism involved with Kickapoo State Park, I'm surprised how little outrage there's been over the announced cuts to DCFS.

Blagojevich used his line item veto to cut $70m from DCFS. Among the impacts:

I'm a lifelong outdoorsman, an avid backpacker, a fisherman, and a cyclist. I love Kickapoo - I spent much of my youth there. I hate the idea of closing it.

But I'm really stunned by how little people have discussed the cuts to DCFS, a state service far more essential than DNR. There's no doubt in my mind that these cuts will adversely affect more children than Palin's candidacy.

Reading through Language Log today, I came across this story. It tells of an increasing number of previously Spanish-only churches beginning to provide services in English, to reach out to "meet the demands of second- and third-generation Hispanics, keep families together and reach non-Latinos." This story continues the tradition of new immigrant groups adopting American customs and language in the second and third generations (e.g., the Italians, the Irish, the Germans, the Chinese, the Japanese). It also removes the cultural arguments of a national language (e.g., "preserve English"). Of course, it doesn't remove the fiscal benefits of a national language - reducing the costs of translating all government documents into multiple languages.