Civil Partnership (lesbian wedding) contract question...

[Mike]

Hi chaps, I'm meeting a lesbian couple tomorrow to discuss their wedding for next year. What I am trying to figure out is how to re-write my contract. I can't quite think of the correct phraseology to go in place of "Bride & Groom", especially in the space allocated for them to fill in their details.

Currently is has spaces for "Bride's Details" and "Groom's Details" but I need to change the groom to a second bride. Do I put "Bride 1" & "Bride 2" or "Partner1" & "Partner 2"? I'm not sure!! :confused::oops:

What suggestions do you have?

[shaggymatt]

Good question. Never thought about it from the contract perspective. One of the wedding sites I frequent, a topic of the vendors was, are you gay friendly? I thought to myself, sure, I don't care as everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.

[Rubi Jane]

I wouldn't worry about it too much. Ask them what role each one will take on. I'm sure there's been same sex marriages where both were brides, both were grooms, or where they went the traditional bride/groom route.

I haven't covered any same sex marriages yet but this is one of the questions I have for them during the initial contact. Some may not have even thought about it too much. I doubt they will be annoyed with a contract with traditional nomenclature, but I'd still raise the question and amend my agreement accordingly. They are obviously comfortable with their sexual orientation and choice to marry so I wouldn't expect them to be offended by asking such a question.

Keep in mind they are two people in love, no different to a traditional bride/groom. The more comfortable you are with that the better you'll be able to serve them.

Good luck and let us know the outcome of the nomenclature issue.

[Swaffs]

If I get a chance I will ask one of the guys here, who got married a few years ago.

[Mike]

Fair points Lindsey, thanks. I don't have any issues with their sexuality, I have grown up with gay and lesbian friends so it's nothing too new to me.

Thanks Rich.

[OdiN1701]

Change Bride to "Non Gender-Specific Person 1" and Groom to "Non Gender-Specific Person 2".

[Shootfilm]

My guess is that they have names. You shouldnt use tems like bride, groom, person 1 or person two unless you have them defined by name in the contract anyways.

SF

[cchooks]

I just list Client, and space for up to 2 people. I also just call it an event provide a space for whatever type fo event is happening. KISS, Keep it simple S......

Dave

[auroraskye]

I would just say 'client #1, client #2' or whatever. I don't even specify bride and groom.. I only ask for one address and I have slots for 'home #, cell #, cell #' and two spaces to sign names..

[bnlearle]

Keep in mind they are two people in love, no different to a traditional bride/groom. The more comfortable you are with that the better you'll be able to serve them.
I really don't mean to call you out, but why do things like this have to come out when anything about same sex marriages comes up? I can understand in threads like "I'm shooting my first SS wedding and I'm uncomfortable about it! Help!" - but this? He just asked how he should phrase something in his contract. That has nothing to do with people being in love, or not. Just sort of a non sequitur ;)

[tim]

I've done one wedding like this. I only use "Bride" and "Groom" twice each in the contract - I refer to them as "customers". I just changed Bride to Bride (first name) and Bride (second name).

[Rubi Jane]

I really don't mean to call you out, but why do things like this have to come out when anything about same sex marriages comes up? I can understand in threads like "I'm shooting my first SS wedding and I'm uncomfortable about it! Help!" - but this? He just asked how he should phrase something in his contract. That has nothing to do with people being in love, or not. Just sort of a non sequitur ;)

The OP did ask for suggestions on what to call each member of the couple, and my suggestion was to ask them. I reiterated that there really isn't anything different about the couple (ie. love between two people getting married) to encourage a SS couple being treated like any other traditional couple. In other words, talk to them, be comfortable with them. The OP since established their comfort level.

Sometimes we fall to our peers for answers, or at least suggestions, when often the most accurate & considerate answer might be obtained from the client.

For many areas SS marriage is relatively new concept, reinforcing why SS couples marry isn't a negative thing, IMO anyway.

[cchooks]

<<<< Rubi Jane wrote:
Sometimes we fall to our peers for answers, or at least suggestions, when often the most accurate & considerate answer might be obtained from the client. >>>

I am not changing my agreement per situation. My agreement is as generic as possible to fit any situation. SS'ers get equal treatment by not special treatment. All of my couples get Special Treatment to begin with.

Dave

[Rubi Jane]

<<<< Rubi Jane wrote:
Sometimes we fall to our peers for answers, or at least suggestions, when often the most accurate & considerate answer might be obtained from the client. >>>

I am not changing my agreement per situation. My agreement is as generic as possible to fit any situation. SS'ers get equal treatment by not special treatment. All of my couples get Special Treatment to begin with.

Dave
Generic is good - simple wins! Couldn't agree more.

[AlexMoPhotography]

I kept my contract exactly the same when I shot one last week. They didn't mind at all, although it helped that one was wearing a tux. I'm not sure how common it is for both to be in a bridal gown.

[DDCSD]

I'd just use their names.

[Ferrari_Alex]

I though this is a joke when I saw the thread title.....apparently it is not.

[Mike]

Well I can report that I changed it to something much more generic. Changed B&G to "The Couple" which I will probably keep in the future for straight weddings.

The meet went well too, they were very nice and paid in full up front!! That was a nice bonus!!

[Mike]

I though this is a joke when I saw the thread title.....apparently it is not.

Why? :confused:

[Anke]

Well I can report that I changed it to something much more generic. Changed B&G to "The Couple" which I will probably keep in the future for straight weddings.

The meet went well too, they were very nice and paid in full up front!! That was a nice bonus!!

Good thinking, Mike. And you don't need to change anything between the different styles of marriage too. So less photocopying/printing costs :D

[Mike]

Thanks Chris, that was what I thought! :D

[bnlearle]

The OP did ask for suggestions on what to call each member of the couple, and my suggestion was to ask them. I reiterated that there really isn't anything different about the couple (ie. love between two people getting married) to encourage a SS couple being treated like any other traditional couple. In other words, talk to them, be comfortable with them. The OP since established their comfort level.
But they aren't like any other traditional couple in ALL matters pertaining to wedding photography. Saying they are is just way too PC. This is a perfect example. In a traditional marriage, you can say "Bride" and "Groom" in the contract without asking anybody "what would you like to be called?" In a SS wedding, you have to figure out what to do in this situation if you've never done one before. Asking a client is kind of weird. I wouldn't do that. If anything, I think it could make as many couples offended as it would comfortable. All gay people aren't the same. Some would have no problem with the question and some would take it as "you want to 'call' us something?!"

For many areas SS marriage is relatively new concept, reinforcing why SS couples marry isn't a negative thing, IMO anyway.
Going and "reinforcing" it to people who have shown no need for reinforcement is a negative thing - as it's pointless and adds to people feeling uneasy about talking about gay issues (which is TERRIBLE for gay people). He's shooting a SS wedding for goodness sakes. He's not one of the bad guys ;)

It just seems that when these topics come up - no matter how not anti-gay they are - someone always has to throw in "they're normal people..." or "they're just in love..." when the OP never touched on the matter.

To the OP. I think "the couple", "the client(s)", or going with their names is the best. Asking a client how you should run your business is never a good thing, IMO ;)

[Mike]

Thanks Bobby, the couple asked me if it was my first gay wedding and were quite pleased that it was and said that they hoped it would bring in more business for me from that sector of the market. I hope it does!! :D

[Rubi Jane]

But they aren't like any other traditional couple in ALL matters pertaining to wedding photography. Saying they are is just way too PC. This is a perfect example. In a traditional marriage, you can say "Bride" and "Groom" in the contract without asking anybody "what would you like to be called?" In a SS wedding, you have to figure out what to do in this situation if you've never done one before. Asking a client is kind of weird. I wouldn't do that. If anything, I think it could make as many couples offended as it would comfortable. All gay people aren't the same. Some would have no problem with the question and some would take it as "you want to 'call' us something?!"


Going and "reinforcing" it to people who have shown no need for reinforcement is a negative thing - as it's pointless and adds to people feeling uneasy about talking about gay issues (which is TERRIBLE for gay people). He's shooting a SS wedding for goodness sakes. He's not one of the bad guys ;)

It just seems that when these topics come up - no matter how not anti-gay they are - someone always has to throw in "they're normal people..." or "they're just in love..." when the OP never touched on the matter.

To the OP. I think "the couple", "the client(s)", or going with their names is the best. Asking a client how you should run your business is never a good thing, IMO ;)
We can agree to disagree, that's OK with me. Asking clients isn't weird, this may be your business but it's their life and personalizing your service is paramount in a service business. I ask all my clients how their ceremony is going to unfold and quite often there are special situations that knowing about in advance will help me cover the wedding. Example, one bride was having her 3 brothers away and they were all walking her down the aisle in succession. She divulged her reasoning, which isn't important here, but had I not asked, and she hadn't thought to tell me I wouldn't have been wiser. Her brothers giving her away was very important to her. Most couples it's their first marriage, they've likely never planned a wedding before so why is it so bad to ask the 'details' of the ceremony as they may not think to tell me everything? NOT asking a couple, whether straight or gay is poor customer service IMO. I'd ask a straight couple so why wouldn't I ask a gay couple? I beg to differ, they ARE the same as a straight couple in every way except they are same sex, which has no consequence to me.

You seem sensitive to the discussion, so to save us both time I won't make an effort to continue.

Adios

[bnlearle]

I'm probably the least sensitive person in the world. Okay, maybe not, but I'm up there ;)

Anyways, you're mixing topics now. Asking about how a wedding might unfold -- or if there are any unique happenings with ones wedding -- is VERY different than asking someone how they want to be addressed in your contract. We're talking about contracts. And unless you ask every straight couple "how would you like to be referred to in my contract?", then you are admitting that you'd do it differently here (by telling the OP to ask how they want to be referred to).

Contracts are typically meant to be drawn up by legal professionals. Again, asking a client what they think should be in your contract does not look good.

Lastly, open-mindedness has nothing to do with glossing over obvious differences -- or pretending they don't exist. Fact is, there are differences for most wedding photographers when dealing with SS couples as opposed to the average wedding (which is hetero). Does that mean gay people are less valuable, or some garbage? Absolutely not!!! Does it mean they don't deserve beautiful wedding photos? No way! Gay people are just like straight people in the sense that some are beautiful, kind human beings and some are terrible, annoying ones. But that doesn't change the fact that when shooting two men you'll have to ask yourself "I'd normally have the groom dip the bride and kiss her -- would that look weird with two guys?" Maybe you don't have those questions, and that's great! But the average wedding photographer seems to - and it has nothing to do with not being comfortable with SS couples. It has everything to do with the simple fact that most people haven't shot SS couples. It's really that simple.

Bobby