Department of HealthRules Comment

Nov 26 2012 2:56PM I think a choice of terminology on marriage certificates should be offered to each couple, according to each couple's preference. This would serve the interests of accuracy as well as diversity.
Nov 26 2012 5:24PM For the vast majority of marriages the terms husband and wife are not only accurate but are central to the deeply held understanding of the Covenant of Marriage. This is where the political or social discussion is incapable of apprehending the heart of the matter. For those who view this as merely a legal contract, an alternative license with soft language should be available. The rest of society should not be punished with a certificate that fails to reflect the depth of the event.
Nov 26 2012 7:06PM The term 'spouse' is a legal term, and recognized universally. It is already used on IRS tax forms, military forms, insurance applications and forms, medical records and forms, mortgage and purchase applications. As a legal form, Washington State's marriage or divorce forms should be updated to correspond with the various other legal documents of modern living.
Nov 26 2012 7:56PM I appreciate that the new law necessitates a new form, but keep the old form as well. If you don't, many male/female couples will begin crossing state lines in order to have a marriage license that reads with the old language; a shift to "spouse 1" and "spouse 2" (for those who don't need it) robs the standard wedding of some of its beauty and romance. Thanks!
Nov 26 2012 9:40PM Hello, I understand that there is a change coming to the marriage certificates in Washington State. I am super pleased that gay marriage is allowed in Washington state and I would never want two people to not be able to marry based on who they love, however, why the generic Spouse A or Spouse B? Why not make it Bride/Groom, Bride/Groom and allow what ever fits to be circled? It could be two brides, 2 grooms or one of each. Spouse A/B is NOT who they are, they are NOT married yet, they are about to be. A spouse is one who is already married. Keep it bride and groom, but add multiples of each to suit the couple being married. Positively, Margaret Hughes (bride of 20 years to my groom John).
Nov 26 2012 9:44PM I've too have been married 20 yrs and I love being married to my wife. We are both strong supporters of the union of whomever wants to be in a lifelong relationship. However, this kind of action just provides ammunition for the people against such 'different' unions. Why change something that is very special to people who marry? I want my wife to be my 'bride' on my marriage cert and I'm proud to be her 'groom'. I know it fashionable to be 100% behind the gay movement (and for the most part I am) but leave my tradition alone. I'm all for equality but this change isn't doing anyone any good. Why not have bride\bride or groom\groom as an option?
Nov 26 2012 9:58PM I am 100% against any change at all. Marriage is between a man and woman.
Nov 26 2012 11:26PM I agree with the idea of gender neutral matrimony as supported by the change in law. I do not support adding a requirement to track on a government document what sex or gender each individual is. It is not up to DOH to create a public document for people to track who is gay and how many gay marriages there are for those who wish to discriminate despite the change in law. The idea of requiring an individual to identify what sex they are goes against one of the purposes for allowing marraige between people regardless of what sex they are. The idea of continuing to require the declaration continues to attempt to shame those who do not know which sex to choose for themselves. Must it be the genetic sex based on X and Y chromosomes, and which must it be for those with XXY chromosomes? For those lacking the correct genetic plumbing through choice or accident or disfiguring abuse, the government does not need to have a legal document created to potentially be held against someone down the line because they chose one checkbox or another on a government document. We the people tire of government creating disonance and disharmony for the sake of tick marks. Please stop being so uncaring.
Nov 27 2012 7:48AM I am very excited by this new law that has been endorsed by a majority of the voters in Washington state. My partner and I plan to be married on our seventh anniversary this summer. It would mean a great deal to us if the terms on the marriage certificate were gender neutral. All we are asking for is equal treatment under the law. Gender neutral terms would provide that. Thank you.
Nov 27 2012 7:59AM I think changing the terminology is stupid. It is exactly why the referendum was approved. To make the terminology the same. Tim Church's comments about how we 'obviously' have to change the terminology is silly. We don't obviously have to do that. Just keep it as husband-husband or wife-wife...just like the words we've always used. Many of my friends refer to each other in this manner.
Nov 27 2012 7:59AM Please do not change the marriage form to gender neutral. The marriage forms are indeed filled out prior to marriage and the parties involved are either bride or groom, they are not spouses yet. Provide a form that is gender neutral for gay people and leave the hetero forms ALONE ! Please.
Nov 27 2012 8:12AM Absolutely, we should have a form that is gender neutral so everyone will feel that it applies to them. Thank you for thinking of this.
Nov 27 2012 8:18AM Spouse A, Spouse B; uh NO! I did vote to reject this, but that is now moot. But, for a marriage license, which is a piece of paper to show commitment between 2 people who are devoting their lives to each other, Spouse A and B is an insult. Why not something less mechanical? Requestor? Petitioner? And no A's or B's. My guess is that the idea of removing the bride and groom from the certificates is to remove the 'position' in the union of the 2 people. Well, A and B still puts them in a position. I can see the dilemna for the minister when he/she says "I now pronounce you A and B. You may kiss the letter". Come on, at least leave a little compassion in the certificate. Don't use Spouse A or B.
Nov 27 2012 8:20AM Getting married is a special recognition to society of the love and devotion a man and woman have to each other. The titles bride/groom express these sentiments, are carried with honor and pride and should NOT be changed. If WA State goes to gender neutral terms, I would have to visit a different state to get married. Also strongly disagree with WA State keeping track of gender identification!
Nov 27 2012 8:27AM No, I am against changing the form and language of a traditional marriage certificate. I feel that this penalizes the majority for the sake of sensitivity of a few. If there is the option of two separate forms then by all means do it. If we can only have one then leave it alone.
Nov 27 2012 8:32AM Since there are more "man and woman" marriages or divorces, I suggest that: 1. Keep the current terms in place: There will always be more "man and woman" marriages than homosexual or lesbian marriages. 2. But in future have two choices for new certificates and if the people to be married want, they can choose a. The "man and woman" terminology b. (OR) The gender-neutral terminology
Nov 27 2012 8:50AM My domestic partner and I will be getting married on our 11th anniversary next summer. We are happy to refer to each other as "husband" rather than the generic or gender neutral term "spouse" or "partner." However, many people would appreciate that option. I think ALL options should be available on the form so that those who prefer traditional terminology can choose that, and those who prefer gender neutral language have that option as well. I do NOT agree with using this information to track how many same-sex marriages there are in WA. Under the new law we are all EQUAL and treated the same. There doesn't need to be any separation or distinction made between same-sex or opposite sex marriages. It's just MARRIAGE!
Nov 27 2012 9:19AM New York went through a similar change about a year ago, and instead of removing the gender-specific language, they simply put "BRIDE/GROOM/SPOUSE" in each space. This avoids the cold, impersonal "SPOUSE A/B" language. It also allows each person to refer to themselves by whatever title they want to, and does not demote one particular person to a "B" position.
Nov 27 2012 9:20AM I did not vote to support this proposal for this very reason, among others. I staunchy believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Since the vast majority of those marrying or divorcing will be heterosexual couples it is inappropriate to change the language to cater to a small minority of the population. Let there be an alternatively worded certificate available for those who want it but leave the traditional wording ALONE! Spouse A and spouse B? How romantic!!
Nov 27 2012 9:47AM I beleive people getting married who still believe in and want a traditional marriage should be able to have a marriage certificate that states "husband" and "wife". Give people an option of what type of certificate they want. For example - when applying for the certificate give the applicants a choice of what type of certificate they want - they can choose if they want the traditional wording or if they want gender neutral wording.
Nov 27 2012 9:55AM I voted against R-74 because it is not possible to change the definition of the word 'marriage'. Now that the homosexuals have their mandate they will continue demand more and more privileges. And I doubt that any input from us will change their determination to go to "Partner A and Partner B" on their so-called "marriage" certificate. Assuming that is the case, then those of us in true marriages ought to have the option, at least, of calling ourselves husbands and wives.
Nov 27 2012 9:57AM This generation is going crazy. When mankind finds a way to beget children between two men or two women, THEN I will vote for gender neutral. Until then, I shall obey my God's command to confine marriage to one man and one woman. Shame on all you so "politically correct" liberals.
Nov 27 2012 10:33AM I also feel strongly that removing the traditional marriage terms is a slap in the face for non-gay marriages. At its core it punishes those that respect a deeper understanding of what marriage really is by forcing them into a box of spouse A & spouse B instead of husband and wife. If your true desire is to respect others, then PLEASE don’t make a new form that will offend traditional marriage and track gays. But isn’t that what the homosexual community wanted in the first place? They already clearly had the rights and unions and legal protections of traditional marriage. Many have already voiced that having any other form than what is used now would become a great way for the government to track and tally homosexuals, if that’s what they’re trying to do. Our government should not be in the business of tracking and tallying homosexuals. Marriage licenses are a form of tax. As already mentioned, couples will be compelled to travel to other states to pay their marriage tax, in order to be recognized as “husband and wife” and to benefit those states that uphold traditional marriage.
Nov 27 2012 10:41AM I would prefer to keep the Gender-Specific terms on the marriage and divorce certificates. For gay and lesbian individuals they can choose if they want it to say husband-husband or wife-wife, or husband-wife on their forms.
Nov 27 2012 12:35PM Please do not change the form. Marriage is between a man and a women. Make up a new form, why change the existing one? We have separate forms for everything in this society.
Nov 27 2012 1:11PM It's about time. Name any other license in any state that can be denied on the basis of gender of the applicant? Thank goodness, better late than not at all.
Nov 27 2012 1:42PM Since the gender of the parties to a marriage ceremony will now be irrelevant, I believe there is no reason to ask about the gender of the parties, and that language on the certificate should be deleted.
Nov 27 2012 1:54PM Against anymore changes in language or description. Marriage is between and man and a women only!
Nov 27 2012 2:08PM I haven't read draft rules; commenting on commentary about draft rules? PLEASE -- back off, take a deep breath and consider the English Language, before just modifying an existing term into some klutzy expedient translation. (I've seen horrible examples on other government forms. {eg: DOL's abominable "On-Site" Professional License}. This law-change is a "change" - a relation between two co-equal PEOPLE. Sobeit. We do not to translate titles when no title is necessary. The intent of the law is to remove gender or other irrelevant relational designators. Just eliminate them. Not Spouse-1, Partner-B, Master, Minor, Partner-2, Sig-Other-X, Leftie, Rightie, Person-M, ...----> No Reference title needed whatsoever. Simply DELETE the Honorific or Positional-Reference. Provide two blank-lines for two people to sign in whatever order they wish. PLEASE do not bastardize the English-language where NOTHING is necessary. Thanks for your consideration, --jim_fox, B'ham, WA
Nov 27 2012 2:13PM I support the rule change as proposed for those two documents. For same-sex couples, the words “husband, wife, groom, bride” are obviously not applicable. However, I do believe it’s appropriate to identify the gender of couples on the state certificates, as is proposed in the rule change. In my job as a journalist, I would say a person’s gender often has significance in news reporting. Certainly in terms of distinction and clarity to news consumers, and sometimes in reporting on issues of equality — or inequality — between the sexes. Through the years, the Washington Department of Health istelf has issued numerous press releases citing gender-related statistical information — examples include teen pregnancy rates, identifying at-risk behaviors in young people, even the most popular names for newborn boys and girls. There’s a difference between the sexes — legally, culturally, historically, biologically — and I think that difference should be designated when appropriate in public documents gathered and maintained by the State of Washington, its agencies and departments, and affected local governments. Thank you for your consideration.
Nov 27 2012 2:22PM This state has done enough to wreck the institute of marriage.
Nov 27 2012 2:51PM since the proposed changes are not required by law, it makes no sense to make them if a same-sex couple wishes to marry, they can specify which spouse they are there is no need to demean traditional 2 sex marriages by removing gender related terminology
Nov 27 2012 3:20PM There needs to be two certificates. One for hetrosexuals and one for same sex partners. Please do not water down traditional marriage anymore.
Nov 27 2012 5:07PM I encourage you to keep it the same, or as some have suggested, the Bride/Groom option. None of us are gender neutral. Thank you.
Nov 27 2012 5:24PM The gay and lesbian community won the right to be "married". I myself thought that a civil union was more appropriate. But the ultimate insult in all of this is to refer to the parties in a hetrosexual marriage as spouse A and B. Are the vast majority of those that marry no longer to be referred to as the bride and groom or husband and wife? This in the name of equality for the minority. Outrageous! Maybe, just maybe this new direction in equal rights should result in separate documents for marriage and divorce dependant on same sex or hetrosexual relationships. Sometimes one form does not fit all needs as our society moves in new directions.
Nov 27 2012 5:32PM Since 46.3% of us still believe same sex marriage is wrong and a large % of those who voted to approved are not gay (I don't know what the appropriate word would be to include all forms of this "lifestyle"), but just think others should be able to choose their lifestyle (which really wasn't the issue), why don't we have two different forms? Leave the one we have the way it is to honor God, traditional values and preserve the human race; the other could even be species neutral -- whatever works for those who do not subscribe to those values. The standard is (and always has beem) the Bible but I am sure someone will come up with a "revised" Bible which will no longer be GOD'S WORD. But I am thankful that God does not change with our culture; only man. This is a very disturbing time to put it lightly and I feel very sad that my grandchildren will see this as "normal" behavior. Of course, their parents teach them the truth, but they will be exposed to things that my children could not have even imagined --nor should they have. Anyway, thanks for the opportunity to say what I think. I just wish it mattered.
Nov 27 2012 5:56PM Thank you for opening up to public comment. Perhaps 'Bride/Spouse' and 'Groom/Spouse' on the form, instead of 'Spouse A' and 'Spouse B' may be better than assigning people letters or numbers; but that Spouse is a great term to use. Internally they may be recognized as A/B, but on paper recognizing each simply as 'Spouse' seems less ... legal. As to asking about the 'gender' of each spouse in order to track same-sex marriage rates, I would suggest perhaps the appropriate question is to ask the 'sex' of each spouse; as there are many genders recognized apart from male/female, but sex is generally recognized as the biological distinction. Citing Wikipedia's 'Sex and Gender Distinction' article, 'Sex is annotated as different from gender in the Oxford English Dictionary where it says sex "tends now to refer to biological differences, while . . . [gender] often refers to cultural or social ones.' It may turn out that we have same-sex partners who self-identify as opposite-genders in their relationships.
Nov 27 2012 6:16PM I don't like "Spouse A" and "Spouse B" - it does sound cold, but I do think the forms should be gender neutral for those who want that. I would suggest that only names be required, with a term (Husband/Wife/Partner/or something else) and gender optional -- so it could be: Husband/Wife/Partner/Other - fill in (optional): ____________, Name: ____________, Gender (optional): ____________ and Husband/Wife/Partner/Other - fill in (optional): ____________, Name: ____________, Gender (optional): ____________. Many people don't fit the binary gender system, so this would leave it up to the persons to identify who they are - or not. Hopefully this would satisfy those who want traditional terms and those who don't. Gabi Clayton - 38 years married, female wife to male husband.
Nov 27 2012 7:21PM I oppose this change on the grounds that it's a forced change from traditional terminology for all heterosexual couples. It's an unnecessary and ill advised affront to all those who supported equality in marriage believing that they were doing so with no impact to heterosexual marriages and marriage ceremonies. The signing of a marriage certificate takes place at the time of the marriage and thus is part of the ceremony. There is absolutely no need to take away the cherished terms (bride/groom) from those that want them. Further adding gender is equally unnecessary for those entering into a heterosexual union. Please consider allowing couples to choose to use the traditional certificate while providing another for anyone that would prefer to use alternative language. Finally, I question what need the state has in "tracking" how many same sex marriages occur. That ought to send shivers down the spines of every gay couple getting married.
Nov 27 2012 8:33PM I too, request that the Department of Health retain the current Certificate of Marriage and provide an alternate using "gender neutral" language for those who wish it.
Nov 27 2012 9:19PM
Nov 27 2012 10:41PM GOD created marriage for man and woman, and only GOD wouldnt change it. BEWARE YOU scoffers of GOD, youll see, when you die!!!!!!!!!
Nov 28 2012 6:19AM I absolutely do not concur with making the certificates ONLY gender-neutral. I strongly recommend that there be the option of either selecting groom/bride or spouse A/ spouse B. Why can't there be a box that is checked on the certificate indicating what that person wants to be called? By eliminating the choice for a person to say they are a bride or a groom, the state would be reverse discriminating. All these years same sex partners said the document didn't match their partnership/union. So I would say the same now if the state doesn't provide the groom/bride option. Why does it have to be one or the other? In our state we have at least 50% of the people that identify with the wording bride/groom. By eliminating that choice you have not recognized this. I did not appreciate the comments made by Mr. Church (Dept of Health staff) when he was interviewed. He said that the wording must change! Really, why is one person dictating that we can't have a choice in the matter. If you want comments then officials should not be saying what the change must be before hand. There is certainly room for both groups to have the choice on their wording. The marriage certificate is an important part of the commitment two people make and they should have the option to select what they want to be "called". Don't take away the bride/groom option.
Nov 28 2012 7:56AM I strongly disagree with changing the wording of the traditional marriage certificate. However, if there needs to be another form, create another form. Let the people who will use that new form argue over the verbage. Charge the cost of printing the new forms to those people who will be using the new form. Don't tax everyone for a form that only a minority will be using. Thanks for taking comments online for those who can't travel to the community forum.
Nov 28 2012 8:00AM My Marriage certificate says husband and wife. I would hate for it to say Spouse 1 and Spouse 2. Why not keep the one we have and have a differant one for same sex marriage.
Nov 28 2012 8:08AM You seem to be rushing into this without taking sufficient time to take public comment. By all means make a provisional change for same sex couples only while buying time to do this right. News of this emerged less than 48 hours ago and your meeting is already in progress. That's not a good process. Please don't ram this change down our throats.
Nov 28 2012 8:10AM Why are we getting less than 24 hours to comment on this? Why change a time-honored tradition where, for the very first time, a girl can affirm that she is a "Bride"? Marriage is a sacred contract. Demeaning it as a contract between "Party 1" and "Party 2" is taking away more than just a tradition. DO NOT take away from everyone in order to pander to a vocal minority for the sake of political correctness. The State should simply provide an alternate form for those that request it. This arrangement could even be temporary until clearer policies can be thoughtfully decided upon. Sudden, knee-jerk, emergency policy-making has never done anyone any good and may even do social harm in the long run. Thank you for your reasonable consideration.
Nov 28 2012 8:36AM I think that there needs to be either two forms or a choice on the current form. It is not Ok to do away with traditional marriage wording just as the rest of this state believes it is not ok to not allow same sex couples to marry. It would be fair to those of us that are a traditional couples. Im tired of all the political correct BS and do not appreciate even the thought of taking away the traditional wording on the license.Now you want to take away the traditions and rights of a traditional couple to fit what society has apparently deemed correct. Please think about that as well. Thank you
Nov 28 2012 8:38AM I strongly urge you NOT to change the marriage certificate wording for the general population. Make a separate one for same sex couples. This is only the beginning of changing verbiage in all our state documents to be gender neutral which will be extremely expensive. We should count the cost on every level before making this change.
Nov 28 2012 9:01AM While I support same-sex couples the right to have a union and be recognized as a family unit, I do not support gender neutral terms on a marriage license. I feel it devalues the people getting married and disrespects the whole idea of marriage. I am unmarried and hope to someday have a marriage license that I can hang on my wall and I do not wish to be referred to as "spouse A" or "spouse B". I am asking that you please keep the terms "man, women, husban and wife" and if necessary have a separate license for people of the same sex that uses the terminology they wish to have. I will admit that if it does in fact change, I will be the first to find another state to get married in to have the traditionally terms on my marriage license.
Nov 28 2012 10:17AM I believe it is every Washingtonians right to choose their own combination of titles for a marriage license. Who is to say same-sex couples want to have "spouse" on their license? I know of many cases where 2 women chose to both be brides and 2 men chose to both be grooms. Or they may prefer to be bride and groom. No matter the choice, why not simply allow for options for each person: bride/groom/spouse. A small printing difference can hardly be an extra burden for something so personal and special. Also please considerthe amount of couples who are heterosexual and how they would prefer to still have a bride/groom label on their certificate. If the entire idea oftbis motion is to have equality, let's have equality of choice and let couples speak for themselves!!
Nov 28 2012 10:31AM What a mockery of marriage it is that you are proposing!
Nov 28 2012 11:07AM I do agree to the changes to the Certificate, but request some technical changes. Since the Department is attempting to make the Certificate gender neutral, I am opposed to the Department asking for the gender of each individual. While gender may seem to be clear to many of us, it is not always so clear to others. If the Department moves forward with the proposed changes to the Certificate, I request that the Certificate be valid if the gender items are not marked. I strongly disagree with some commenters that there should be two Certificates (one for some couples and one for other couples). No matter what terms the revised Certificate uses, marriage is about what each couple makes of it. No matter the changes the Department makes to the Certificate, it still won’t satisfy people who voted to reject Referendum 74. However, the changes reflect the will of the People’s vote—a union for all couples who have decided to commit to each other. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes.
Nov 28 2012 11:14AM I am against changing the form and language. Marriage is between a man and a woman. We should make up a new form for same sex couples and keep track. I don’t want to be Partner A or B. I would just go to a different state to get married. I feel bad for same sex couples, what is the minister suppose to say? “ you are now partner A and B! you may now kiss each other?” We create and make changes to certificates all the time. its not hard to make a new marriage certificate for same sex couples !!!.
Nov 28 2012 11:38AM To Whom It May Concern, Regarding changing to gender neutral forms, please consider creating two separate forms. One gender specific, the other gender neutral, and let the user decide. It would be roughly the same as having the same form available in multiple languages. Thank you. Sincerely, Richard A. Marks
Nov 28 2012 11:38AM I agree with the need of gender neutral forms. To do this in an inclusive way may mean that while no longer leaving out same sex couples, is the right thing to do...To make so many feel like there is not a place for them on the form may not be the best solution. Using Bride/Groom label for each spouses field on the form can be more inclusive for all couples.
Nov 28 2012 12:22PM There are people who believe marriage is between a man and a woman, however there are people who feel this is not right for them. Humans should have equal rights however separate church from state in this case should be applied so both sides can be o.k. God is our judge, no human holds that job but Him. Tracking purposes can be applied internally by using some form of "hidden" computer fix so the public can see 'yes' they are married but the gender will be hidden and only accessed by DOH Staff for statistical purposes. Couples who want the traditional certificate printed should receive that indicating "husband and wife" at no extra charge for them. Spouse A and B is fine as long as the marriage certificate for some can be printed out in the traditional style for those who want it. I believe in God and I want the traditional style, my choice. Thank you for considering my opinion.
Nov 28 2012 1:41PM Is there a way you can put groom with two lines and bride with two lines .. It would be sad to lose that part of the marriage application, and it would be just lazy if you put gender-specific A and B. Mass did that. I think Washington can do better.
Nov 28 2012 1:49PM People aren't robots and are emotionally tied to the terms "bride" "groom". It's okay to have bride/bride groom/groom or bride/groom. Pretty much covers everyone and you also know which sex they are without asking. If you want more specificity, add "spouse". So someone could choose: "spouse and groom" perhaps. SpouseA and SpouseB are not only robotic, but it allows for fights and discrimination among couples. How many heterosexual women will be SpouseA, few if men have their way!!
Nov 28 2012 2:45PM Why does the state feel the need to change the marriage certificates? If the states feels an absolute need to have a different marriage certificate then I agree with the other comments that there should be two seperate certificates. Marriage has always been defiend as a union between a man and a woman. The Bible emphatically states that a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave unto his wife.
Nov 28 2012 3:01PM Don't agree that marriage should be gender neutral.
Nov 28 2012 3:52PM We are NOT gender neutral. There are 2 sexes, male and female. While I do NOT agree with same sex marriages, it is the law. However, with computers, there is NO reason to deny heterosexuals their right to be husband and wife. I do NOT agree with a very small group of people inflicting their wishes on the majority. Note that I do NOT hate gays, I feel sorry for them. There is NO gay gene. It is a sad, lifestyle choice by those who cannot for some reason, deal intimately with those of the opposite sex. I worked (RN) with 15 gays over a 28 yr. period...from 6 yrs to 20 years. These were my friends. We ate with, visited in each others' homes, etc. Over time, as each learned that I did not care what they did in private, only that they NOT impose their sexuality on our patients, as I would not have allowed my heterosexual co-workers to do, either, they each told me the day they CHOSE to be gay. Their words, not mine. For example, the most out gay nurse, said that the day his bride-to-be left him at the altar, "I decided to be gay, so I would never be humiliated by a woman again'. Each of my friends had some story of abuse, abandonment, etc., for their 'CHOICE'. IMHO, this is just the beginning of the radical leftist gay agenda. Look at the man, invading a young girl's locker room, where the girls SHOULD have been safe, sitting exposed, and claiming that he had the RIGHT to be there because he's a female (transgender). Again, IMHO, he's a pedophile, and had I had a girl exposed to such perversion, I would have sued, each and every adult, the place where the locker room was, and each level of gov't agency inflicting such a nightmare on children. Why cannot, in gov't computers, there be 3 screens, with choices? Husband and wife, Spouse A and B, and whatever other nonsense a couple might wish. This could be chosen by the couple at the time they apply for a license. The documents could be numbered with XXXXa, XXXb and XXXc or some sort of legal numbering system. Again, I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Sincerely, Pat Walker
Nov 28 2012 3:53PM I agree with the commenter that said the forms should provide the option of "Bride/Groom/Spouse." The law should reflect each individual's right to identify the way they want to.
Nov 28 2012 3:59PM Why not have 3 forms? One for those who want "traditional" certificates, one for husband and husband and one for wife and wife. That way you can have one that is specific for your situation. There won't be that many printed for the same sex couples and it would be easier to track the marriages. The cost would be a bit more for the new forms but the cost could be offset by the lawsuits that are bound to happen by someone who is offended by the gender neutral forms. Until the Federal Government allows for same sex marriage the term "spouse" won't be universally used on all government forms. Same sex couples fought hard to have this piece of paper and they should have more of an imput that anyone else on what they would like. The world is changing and people need to open their minds and hearts. Washington is a forward thinking (for the most part)state and this should be the start of things to come.
Nov 28 2012 4:49PM This referendum was all about gays getting to use the word "Marriage" to refer to their committed relationships, ever though the definition of the word is heterosexual and refers to maternity, the state of motherhood. So it would be highly ironic for the Marriage Certificate to take away all the marriage words that gays have screamed and cried to get. A woman about to be married is a bride, and a man about to be married is a groom. We did NOT vote to change those words, and we did vote to treat gay couples as "married" so leave the forms alone except to allow for a bride/bride or groom/groom option.
Nov 28 2012 4:57PM Forms must reflect the reality of those who are required by law to fill them out and file them. We know that Lambda Legal and the ACLU of Washington have filed comments and Equal Rights Washington, the State’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender civil rights organization concurs with their suggestions. The proposal put forward by these leading civil rights organizations allow all people to be respected.
Nov 28 2012 5:00PM I strongly believe that the form should reflect the fact that the individuals are not spouses at the time of the application. I believe that the forms should provide the options for Bride and Groom and each person or couple can fill it out how they want. i.e. Box 1: Bride/Groom Box 2: Bride/Groom The law should reflect each individual's right to identify the way they want to. Doing this could result in Bride/Groom, Groom/Bride, Groom/Groom, or Bride/Bride.
Nov 28 2012 5:50PM Instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water in our quest for a new marriage certificate, here's an idea: TWO marriage certificate formats, traditional and the new style, that way both sides can have their cake and eat it too! Washington state spends MILLIONS printing things in two languages; English and Spanish so following that thinking why can't we appease both sides with two types of marriage certificates? It isn't right to change the existing marriage certificate to fit the same gender marriages as it isn't fair to label same sex marriages bride and groom. So make it fair for both!
Nov 28 2012 7:34PM Please, this is so wrong. Bride & Groom had been recognized both spiritually and legally forever. Changing the wording is not "keeping up with the times".
Nov 28 2012 11:24PM Just say bride or groom. I think it would be weird to put spouse. Ask the people that are looking forward to December 6th coming along. But with putting bride or groom you don't have to worry much on terms.
Nov 28 2012 11:30PM Below are a couple of suggestions. Make a second form for gay couples. Just create a new certificate for gay couples and leave the old one as it is for normal couples. Indicate at the top of the marriage certificate that it is for a male and female couple and on the other that it is a certificate for a same sex couple. Add a space on the form where the sex is asked for anyone filling it out. Good Luck.
Nov 28 2012 11:36PM Just because same-sex marriage is in law; it does not change the traditional roll of marriage as it has been for hundreds of years. Forms that are in place now for bride and groom should stay the same and new forms should be produced to accommidate same-sex marriage. These new forms should state same-sex marriage. I understand that the world is evolving; I do not believe in same- sex marriage, but the people has spoken. Do not change the traditional marriage forms but produce additional form for same-sex marriage. When a man and women come to apply for a marriage license they should not have to have forms with and A and B on the forms. Just add/make additional forms for same-sex marriages.
Nov 28 2012 11:45PM My view is: why change the existing language in the marriage certificate? It seems to me that this would be costly to do and that it is possible there are existing supplies of marriage certificates that would have to be discarded (not a very good use of dollars in a "green" environmental State like Wa. I have seen at least lesbian woman refer to the partner as "husband" or "wife" based upon the traditional roles performed. Of course, if the words must be changed, the politically correct term in spouse. That rhymes with mouse, of which some say "mouses", but plural is mice. Plural of spouse, is think is spouses but it might be spice. But, it may be best paraphrased as, what we all know about the best laid plans of mice and men....(Reference to an original poem, "To a Mouse," written by Robert Burns in the late 1700s. I know that when I was sworn in as a US Army Officer in 1970, then President Richard M Nixon signed a document saing that I was an "officer and a gentleman". Well, of course, the document referred to the expect conduct of an officer under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In prior times, there were officially no women office. I looked at the document and knew that I was a belonged a college woman's organization and was a lady and would be a lady long after anyone would look at me and say I was an "officer and a gentleman". Maybe the certificate to officers no longer references "office and a gentleman", maybe someday there will be agreement to change the word of a marriage certificate, but for now the terms "officer and a gentleman" and "husband and wife" are words that connect to the past and remind us how far we have come. But, to me, the most significant event thus far in the 20th Century was when the British Commonwealth of nations voted that the first point child of the first born son of Prince Charles and Diana, Lady of Spencer, will be the next in succession as King or Queen of England. But, that is just one point of view. Thank you for Jovi Swanson for the directions to this web site. As to divorce decrees, I don't know of any special certificates. The Decree of Disolutions that I have seen are written and signed by the State Court Judge. If there are other certificates issued by some other State Agency, then as with marriage certificates those existing supplies should be exhausted first. If the individual court decree is signed by a State Court Judge at the time of the Decree of Dissolution of marriage, then the ea individual party could request a term of choice from the traditional terms or other term authorized by State statute or regulation. Beverley Brown Losey Attorney at Law WSBA 14747 (Details @ WSBA.org - lawyer directory. US Army Retired, ANC RN DOD website for Health Care providers.



Go Back