Parthenogenesis wins
…what??
A proposal to add mothers’ names to marriage certificates has been rejected for excluding gay couples.
The proposal had intended to include mothers’ names on marriage certificates, in a bid to “reflect modern Britain”.
The certificates currently only ask for the name of each spouse’s father. The new proposals are intended to include mothers on equal footing to fathers.
However the Home Office has rejected the plans, saying it could not agree to them as assuming that couples have opposite-sex parents is exclusionary.
So…it’s fine to name only fathers, but it’s impermissible to mention mothers. Well what if the parents are a lesbian couple?
Then you put the father’s name, just as it is now. Everybody has a father, duh, even if the father has had nothing to do with actually raising the child. Not everyone has a mother.
A Bill will be debated in Parliament next month would make changes to the Marriage Act 1949 and the Civil Partnership Act 2004.
It would “make provision for the recording of the name and occupation of the mother of each party to a marriage or civil partnership for registration purposes”.
Labour MP Christina Rees, who proposed the legislation, said: “It is safe to extrapolate that hundreds of thousands of marriages have taken place while the Government failed to act.
“That is hundreds of thousands of instances in which women have been accorded second-class status. In a developed country in the 21st century that beggars belief.”
Another MP who also supports the campaign to have the change made, said: “On behalf of ordinary, average, not brilliant, fantastic mothers everywhere, I want to say that sometimes our children love us too and might want us on their marriage certificates, along with their fathers.”
Stupid cishet cows. Nobody cares about mothers, ffs, it’s fathers who count. Those MPs are probably TERFs.
Consider this news item for additional context:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/76092153/South-Australia-promises-law-change-to-recognise-dead-Britons-same-sex-marriage
What the hell is wrong with asking for the Parents or Gaurdians names? Why just the Father indeed? Total no brainer to fix this in an inclusive manner.
PS that story has been updated with a new headline and the promise to change the law.
When my son and his fiancée got married in England in November, they pointedly retaliated against the ‘fathers only’ ruling on the marriage certificate by getting the mothers to be the witnesses who signed the register.
WTF?
So just ask for the name of the parent or parents, however many that might be – not every child is raised by a dyad of whatever gender(s). Covers all “alternative” family structures.
It’s amazing how quickly “progressive” “inclusive” attitudes have been used to erase women.
It’s amazing how “progressive” “inclusive” attitudes no longer do anything for women.
But, you know, inclusive doesn’t really mean women. I mean, cis-women. After all, we’re privileged just to be born and regarded as who we are, with no downsides because we’re all fluffy and pink and nurturing and all that, and so we don’t need to be included, because our parents and friends never saw us in any different way than we saw ourselves, and didn’t try to force us into gender norms we weren’t comfortable with…I’m starting to gag.
I think the phrase you are looking for is “sugar and spice and all things nice”.
Just to, you know, mansplain that ;-)
I am reminded of the fact that affirmative action benefited white women the most. I’ll try to be happy thinking how much it must have hurt people in the Home Office to have admitted gay men to Club Privilege.
The narrative that ‘fathers matter more than mothers’ is very powerful in our culture. WHY IS THAT?
Why in the world should any parent’s name be on a marriage certificate?
I imagine that’s because in England, everything is about lineage. Your position in society depended greatly on who your parents were. Plus, genealogy. It’s a lot easier if those documents can be traced back quickly.
To help prevent bigamy?