Outrage! The Gay Marriage Edition

Every once in a while there are topics and items in the news that I get “outraged” about. I don’t really feel any ire about the topic, but they are items that seem like they would tee off someone somewhere. For example, I successfully predicted that a “family” TV group would be upset that people posed as nude Greek statues during the 2004 Olympics … in Greece.
Anyway, this doesn’t have much to do with the introduction of same-sex marriages. That, after all, is a politically charged territory that I will responsibly refrain from commenting on.
No, I’m up in arms about these new marriage forms. Instead of referring to the individuals getting married as “bride” and “groom,” the new forms identify these future spouses as “Party A” and “Party B.” This nomenclature is clearly discriminatory — it forces one spouse to be subordinate to the other.
Party B is clearly slighted in this new form. By clearly being identified as the second party on the form, they’re almost an afterthought to the primary party — A. While having one partner be subordinate to the other is apparently all right for certain groups of people (for various religious and secular reasons), I don’t feel it’s right.
I think the best approach is the one taken by the characters of the TV series, “Futurama.” Forced to name multiple copies of the same characters (when they came across a parallel universe), they named one place “Universe A” and the other “Universe 1.”
I think the forms should be redone to include “Party A” and “Party 1.” I hope someone somewhere will file an injunction to prevent further discrimination.