Speak Out Against Single-ism, Or, What If We Had a Wedding and No One Came?

The California Supreme Court has 86 days and counting to rule on the Proposition 8 debacle. As Senior Editor Jacob Sullum noted on Friday, most observers expect the court will try to make everyone happy (or just equally upset) by upholding the ban while also declaring that those married before the ban are, indeed, valid spouses.

But what about the one group that has been ignored—even discriminated against—throughout the whole mess: the singles' crowd. What about Bachelor Ben and Eligible Ellen? What about their rights?

There was one person who spoke up for the lonely. That would be Terry J. Allen from (cue the hissing) the left-wing magazine In These Times. In the February issue, she makes quite an interesting argument for turning the whole system on its head. Take it away, you nutty liberal, you:

America's current marriage system, even when it includes same-sex couples, inherently discriminates against millions of people who are not in a sexual relationship. … Ensuring equal rights for all requires relegating or elevating (however you look at it) marriage to the realm of religion. Kind of like christenings, bar mitzvahs and chicken sacrifice.

The state's job, then, would be to assign benefits, if any, to couples, but not to define who can enter into coupledom. There is no rational, as opposed to religious, reason why any two people shouldn't be able to form a civil union that carries the same rights as marriage: to pass on and inherit property, make decisions for the sick, visit inmates and get discounts on Carnival cruises.

The only, proper response to this idea:

Woah indeed, Ted. Woah. In. Deed.

That's right. Ban marriage from the law books, recognize only civil unions, turn black into white. Allen takes her proposal to its logical extreme, and while she sweeps over objections quickly, she makes some decent preemptive strikes:

But really, would the legal right to shared Social Security benefits so excite two heterosexual women that they would turn lesbian? Would allowing two brothers to share medical benefits inspire them to acts of incest?…

Tradition is another bulwark against change. But even traditions that appear carved in stone or mandated by God evolve over time… "Traditional" marriage used to be a business contract between families. It legitimized procreative sex and formalized property and inheritance. It was often polygamous and included child spouses. Men's conjugal rights included rape and the rule of thumb

Allen's proposal—call it "Prop. 6 or 9"—would guarantee legal and human rights to every combination of two (consenting) adults. With the state out of the picture, it would be easier for religious groups and private organizations to discriminate against anyone they damn well please, making it harder for some whinny F.O.D. to sue because his feelings were hurt.

The idea's so crazy it just might work, which means it'll never be taken seriously. Besides, it's a slippery slope, which could lead to unions that are destined to fail.

In a post last month, Sullum gave one thumb up to a op-ed by David Blankenhorn and Reason contributor Jonathan Rauch that proposes a very reasonable policy. Earlier today, Steve Chapman discussed the troubles with Prop. 8 and democracy. More coverage of Prop. 8 and gay marriage here.

Comments

[Warren]

The idea's so crazy it just might work, which means it'll never be taken seriously.

Certainty of death, small chance of success, what are we waiting for?

[Seward]

I would note (as researchers have discovered) that all claims of patriarchy, etc. aside, that for a long time (over a thousand years) for most people in the "West" we've have had a high rate (as compared to the rest of the world) of people remaining single and of those who do get married doing so by free volition (which is why the average age of marriage for men and women in the "West" has been so late for quite some time). In other words, we've had an oddly "libertarian" system of marriage for a long time in the West.

[SugarFree]

and the rule of thumb

It might help her argument if she didn't mentioned feminist myths like it being legal to beat your wife with a stick "no thicker than your thumb." It was debunked so long ago not even loonies bring it up anymore, just like the "Superbowl is the day of the most domestic abuse calls" crap.

It is often claimed that the term originally referred to a law that limited the maximum thickness of a stick with which it was permissible for a man to beat his wife, but this has been discredited.[1][3] Although British common law before the reign of Charles II permitted a man to give his wife "moderate correction", no 'rule of thumb' (whether called by this name or not) has ever been the law in England.[4][5] Nonetheless, belief in the existence of such a law can be traced as far back as 1782, the year James Gillray published his satirical cartoon Judge Thumb. The cartoon lambastes Sir Francis Buller, a British judge, for allegedly ruling that a man may legally beat his wife, provided that he used a stick no thicker than his thumb, although it is questionable whether Buller ever made such a pronouncement. In the United States, legal decisions in Mississippi (1824) and North Carolina (1868 and 1874) make reference to-and reject-an unnamed "old doctrine" or "ancient law" by which a man was allowed to beat his wife with a stick no wider than his thumb.[1] In 1976, feminist Del Martin used the phrase "rule of thumb" to describe such a doctrine, and the usage gained currency in 1982, when the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a report on wife abuse, titled "Under the Rule of Thumb."[5]

[Geoff Nathan]

And a minor carping quibble--the so-called 'rule of thumb' is an example of what we linguists call an 'etymythology' (like deriving f**k from 'for unlawful carnal knowledge'). It's a fanciful wish-dream (or, I guess, in this case, wish-nightmare). It does not refer to the size of a stick with which to beat women, but the fact that the first knuckle of an average man's thumb is about an inch long.
As SugarFree said... (you're quicker on the draw...)

[SugarFree]

As SugarFree said... (you're quicker on the draw...)

That's why my wife is leaving me. 🙁

[Episiarch]

The fundies will go apeshit if you try to remove marriage from the protection of the state. Never. Gonna. Happen.

There shouldn't be marriages/civil unions in the first place, anyway. Bust out a contract and sign it, and that should be that. Also never gonna happen, unfortunately.

[the innominate one]

more on the rule of thumb

as others have pointed out, it's a myth

[crimethink]

I remember posting the same idea that you're "whoa"ing over (under the name SNOK, Selected Next Of Kin) more than a year ago on these very forums, and immediately being shouted down by the usual pro-gay-marriage suspects because courts wouldn't recognize SNOKs the same way they recognize marriages.

The pro-gay-marriage forces always have some excuse to complain. They will never compromise.

[jtuf]

Yeah, why should asexuals be left out in the cold?

[Mad Max]

From the article:

'Making your union legal, on the other hand, should be between you and state-guaranteed legal and human rights. And it should be available to any two people, gay or straight, in whatever configuration: Mother and son, grandparent and grandkid, mother and daughter, and best friends should all be able to form legal couples that enjoy the rights, privileges, financial benefits and responsibilities now assigned to marriage. (Calm down Rev. Rick: Only two people, no pets allowed.) . . .
'Think about it: To enjoy the tax and other benefits of marriage (or its gay stepchild, current civil unions), a couple is assumed to have consummated the deal with sex-with each other.
'But why shouldn't any practical or loving couple be able to form a unit and consummate it with anything they choose? A night at the opera, a day at the races, a signature on a will?'
'Irrational fear and religion (but I repeat myself) underlie the state's stance that it can assign secular rights to a sacred institution designed for sexual partners-and can exclude platonic couples.'
Don't be fooled by the author's secularist rhetoric - she is a hatemongering bigot and a member of the radical religious right wing.

Allen casually throws off her 'no pets allowed' remark as if she thinks it isn't problematic in the least. Would she have said 'no blacks allowed?' Why does she think that Britney Spears' union with Kevin Federline is worthy of government recognition, while the bond between a man and the faithful Saint Bernard who saved his life when he was about to freeze to death in the snow, should be denied recognition?

Obviously, Allen is blinded by some sort of irrational religious prejudice about the unique moral status of human beings. For the government to codify such sectarian speciesist prejudices into law would violate the separation of church and state.

Likewise, by supporting government discrimination in favor of 'couples,' Allen is calling on the state to uphold the religious dogma that privileges relationships involving exactly two people. To loathsome bigots like Allen, relationships involving three or more people are unworthy of recognition. That means that a loving polyamorous relationship among Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice should be disregarded and disrespected by the government. It means that, to obtain government recognition, the Three Musketeers would have to drop one of their members. The same would go for the Three Stooges (I suppose they would drop Larry).

'even traditions that appear carved in stone or mandated by God evolve over time like Darwin's finches.'

More right-wing talking points. It's right-wingers who speak of tradition in terms of gradual evolution , or organic growth and change - a tradition drops one aspect here, takes on another aspect there, but come on people, evolution takes *years!* The evolution model leaves no room for sudden, radical change - the kind of change we need in this benighted country. Under the evolutionary paradigm Darwin's finches changing their *beaks* but they don't change in a single generation from finches into (say) rosebushes. Yet this is the kind of immediate radical change this country needs, not evolutionary change which could take time.

In short, Allen is a right-wing hatemonger whose workplace should be picketed, and whose home address should be posted on the Web.

[Episiarch]

Max, you're into St. Bernards? Gross.

[Hugh Akston]

I always thought the rule of thumb described where you were allowed to insert said digit during the act. But I learned something today.

I've been beating the"we're all civil unionists now" drum for a long time. Every time I bring it up someone points out that it's impossible and to shut up because letting gays marry by any means legal or otherwise is the better approach. We must expand the federal gov'ts role in doling out benefits to people who act behave in socially constructive ways. Y'know, for freedom.

[Fido Santorum (L-PA)]

Here we go again.

[Mad Max]

'I would note (as researchers have discovered) that all claims of patriarchy, etc. aside, that for a long time (over a thousand years) for most people in the "West" we've have had a high rate (as compared to the rest of the world) of people remaining single and of those who do get married doing so by free volition (which is why the average age of marriage for men and women in the "West" has been so late for quite some time). In other words, we've had an oddly "libertarian" system of marriage for a long time in the West.'

This proves that the libertarian definition of marriage is clearly sectarian and unconstitutional. The reason the West has this silly rule about marriage requiring the consent of the parties is because the Catholic Church forced this dogma down the throats of Europeans at a time when the Church's courts adjudicated the status of marriage.

Outside the Christian West, until comparatively recent times, this sectarian, bigoted rule was not as widely respected. In many cases, families had the right to arrange marriages between their respective children without having to worry about the so-called 'consent' of the children who were being married off.

I thought these Christian fundamentalists were supposed to be 'pro-family,' so why are they imposing a so-called 'consent' rule on families blocking them from making the best arranged marriages they possibly could?

[Mad Max]

Episiarch and Fido,

Allen specifically says that the government should recognize relationships among human couples regardless of whether those relationships are sexual or not. The key point of her article is that the sexual or non-sexual nature of the relationship should be irrelevant, and that only religious prejudice accounts for the privileged status of sexual relationships (whether gay or straight) over other kinds of relationships (like family relations, friendship, Platonic love, etc.)

So, in other words, you're the ones who trying to inject sex into this discussion. Yecch!

[Tonio]

some whinny F.O.D. to sue

I presume you meant "whiny," the adjectival form of whine. The word you used is an onomotopoeia for a sound made by a horse.

LOL.

[Seward]

crimethink,

I guess my response is why the term marriage as applied to gay people is such a big deal in the first place?

[MNG]

"why should asexuals be left out in the cold?"

Isn't that what they want?

[MNG]

Max
I should think one can make think that the thing that makes marriage special is the non-sexual parts of the relationship without making the leap that this would require them to accept that the parties both being human beings would still be a crucial aspect. Do you really disagree with that?

[MNG]

"you're into St. Bernards?"

Well, it could make the phrase "me and my bitch" less offensive and more appropriate...

[Episiarch]

I presume you meant "whiny," the adjectival form of whine.

Gay horses have rights too, Tonio, you fucking bigot.

[FrBunny]

onomotopoeia

joe'z law lives on. Moran!

[MNG]

lol, Epi you beat me to it...

[crimethink]

Seward,

Some people less enlightened than yourself -- and more numerous in our society than homosexuals -- have a huge problem with it. For the sake of social harmony we should seek a solution that removes coercive government action from the issue entirely, if it is possible to do so without violating anyone's rights.

[MNG]

Man, I fucked that 11:46 post way up.

Backs up for running start to try again:

Max, I should think that a person thinking that the fundamental aspects of marriage are the non-sexual parts of the relationship does not logically require them to then deny that the parties being human beings is not also a fundamental aspect.

Whew.

[Tonio]

The evolution model leaves no room for sudden, radical change

MadMax: Fail. On many levels. Unsurprisingly.

First, yes evolution is sudden radical change. The moment an embryo with a mutation is formed, that's evolution. The part that takes a while is for the beneficial mutation to be reinforced through natural selection ans spread throughout the species.

Also, you're failing to account for punctuated equilibrium.

Your attempts to frame your arguments as those of a progressive and slam Allen as a fascist is totally lame, even for you.

[MNG]

"Some people less enlightened than yourself -- and more numerous in our society than homosexuals -- have a huge problem with it. For the sake of social harmony we should seek a solution that removes coercive government action from the issue entirely, if it is possible to do so without violating anyone's rights."

You're right crimethink...In fact we should call black-white marriages not marriages but "Jungle Fever Two Party Genital Access Exclusive Rights Contracts" so as not to upset a bunch of people.

[SugarFree]

Some people less enlightened than yourself -- and more numerous in our society than homosexuals -- have a huge problem with it.

What other rights should we leave up the majority will of the unenlightened mob?

[Mad Max]

'I should think one can make think that the thing that makes marriage special is the non-sexual parts of the relationship without making the leap that this would require them to accept that the parties both being human beings would still be a crucial aspect. Do you really disagree with that?'

I have addressed Allen's discriminatory attitude in limiting her ideas to human couples? Why just human? Why just couples?

In other words, if two (nonsexual) friends can get government recognition of their relationship, why not three (nonsexual) friends?

What is so special about the number two?

The charge of 'speciesism' is designed to resonate with progressives of the 'animal-rights' persuasion. It's about regular pet-owners, not those who have sex with their pets.

[dhex]

"What other rights should we leave up the majority will of the unenlightened mob?"

depends on how bleedy their jesus on a stick is, i guess.

the ones that are really bleedy are either mexicans or those guys in dresses who operated that pedophile smuggling ring that was in the news a few years back.

[dhex]

i appreciate max's rhetoric-fu overarching strategy in this case - linking like values with seemingly like values - though i think it falls down due to obvious flaws. very few people take "speciesism" seriously on that level, even vegans.

[crimethink]

MNG, bad analogy; in my proposal everyone who wants to form a union gets the same appellation. Whether the SNOKs intend to have torrid sex five times a day or merely merge their stamp collections is none of the government's business.

[Episiarch]

Also, you're failing to account for punctuated equilibrium.

Fail! Totally unproven! Gould has zero scientific proof!

Your attempts to frame your arguments as those of a progressive and slam Allen as a fascist is totally lame, even for you.

I may be wrong about this, but I believe Max was being a smartass and using purposely specious arguments to frame her as a fascist, in an attempt to show how people who argue from his point of view are often treated this way.

Not that I agree with Max at all, but I think that was what he was trying to do.

[MNG]

Max
Why is it irrational to suppose that the parties being human beings is fundamental to marriage but that the sex of the human beings involved, or sexual relations at all, is not? Just tell me man.

And certainly one can hold that two party marriages have attributes that are more conducive to the general welfare of society than multi-party marriages (in fact, I bet you buy into these reasons) and still hold that the sex of the two parties is not fundamental without being irrational, right?

[Tonio]

The pro-gay-marriage forces always have some excuse to complain.

Yeah, the Canadian gays are still on the warpath even though they now have full marriage equality, eh?

They will never compromise.

No, there can be no compromise on human rights, especially when the exclusion of those rights is based on superstitious dogma which has been soundly thumped by reason, modernity, evidence-based reasearch, etc.

[crimethink]

What other rights should we leave up the majority will of the unenlightened mob?

You'll notice I included the clause "if no one's rights are violated by doing this." There is no right to a contractual arrangement that the state calls "marriage".

I can understand people getting upset over heterosexual unions being called one thing and homosexula unions another. I disagree, but I understand. So, like the true mother in the story of Solomon and the baby, I'm willing to compromise for the sake of social harmony. Apparently my opponents aren't.

[MNG]

"MNG, bad analogy; in my proposal everyone who wants to form a union gets the same appellation"

Crime
Just having some fun.

What is your proposal? It sounded like supporting civil unions for gays but marriages for straights, sorry if I got it wrong.

[Tonio]

Not that I agree with Max at all, but I think that was what he was trying to do.

Oops, I get confused about who argues from what POV sometime.

Apologies to MM if I was wrong.

And Epi, if you think I'm tough on gay horses, you should ask me my opinion about lesbian moose.

[MNG]

Crimethink
Ok, so I see your view better.

We once had black-white marriage bans. The very idea of a black-white marriage made many people very angry.

So why wouldn't allowing a civil union between black-white couples but calling it a "Jungle Fever Two Party Genital Access Exclusive Rights Contracts" be a good compromise?

And why isn't that a good analogy again?

[MNG]

" my opinion about lesbian moose."

Hmm, where has Reinmoose been as of late?

[crimethink]

Tonio,

I wasn't aware of the scientific research that had proved that the state should recognize homosexual unions as marriages. Perhaps you could link to it. And then maybe you can help me find the research confirming that zebras are black with white stripes.

[crimethink]

So why wouldn't allowing a civil union between black-white couples but calling it a "Jungle Fever Two Party Genital Access Exclusive Rights Contracts" be a good compromise?

To make it match my proposal, you'd have to call unions between white people the same thing. Which I don't think would fly with them.

[Episiarch]

Tonio, what is your opinion on lesbian moose?

[Hambone]

If gays want to marry, that's fine by me. But do they realize just how expensive a divorce is? Are they really thinking this through?

[crimethink]

The SNOK proposal was similar to the one quoted in the original post. Any two mentally competent adult individuals can designate each other as next of kin, with all the legal privileges that currently are attached to marriage. The nature of their relationship is none of the government's business -- remember, the mantra the gay rights movement used to use back when they were fighting anti-sodomy laws?

[Mad Max]

'yes evolution is sudden radical change'

Sudden radical change would be like the beginning of Stuart Little, where a human woman gives birth to a mouse. Or where a badger has an eggplant for an offspring.

For natural selection to produce a change from human to mouse, or badger to eggplant, there would have to be a *lot* of generations, over a *very* extended period of time.

The conservative view of social change is evolutionary, not revolutionary. Take the common law as an example. The institution of the jury evolved over time, until it came to be the institution we know and love (and hate) today. We can see the potential for additional evolutionary change is the U.S. with (say) a statute banning preremptory challenges of jurors, or a constitutional amendment (*not* a statute) specifying certain cases to be tried without a jury, or authorizing judges to deliberate with the jurors. Revolutionary change would be abolishing juries altogether and authorizing the President to kill anyone who "looks guilty" without having a trial.

I'm not saying marriage is or should be subject to evolution, but if it is, the change we're seeing today is *not* evolutionary, but revolutionary.

[crimethink]

Apparently zebras ARE black with white stripes. But you get the point.

Also, I just discovered what a "zebra crossing" is. That Douglas Adams quote makes a whole lot more sense now. I'd always imagined that Man got run over by invisible stampeding zebras after poofing God, which didn't make much sense.

[Hambone]

"In other words, if two (nonsexual) friends can get government recognition of their relationship, why not three (nonsexual) friends?

What is so special about the number two?"

Why not just form a LLC?

[MNG]

crimethink
So are you arguing that all couples be recognized by the government as civil unions, but individual couples can call their unions whatever they want?

Or are you reserving the word "marriage" for one set of unions?

[Hambone]

"I can understand people getting upset over heterosexual unions being called one thing and homosexula unions another."

You mean separate but equal?

[crimethink]

The government never uses the word marriage in my proposal. Under any circumstances.

However, individuals and private organizations may use it as they please. So if gays choose to call their unions "marriages" and the unions of heterosexuals "disgusting abominations" I say have at it. I'm all about social harmony, as you see.

[Barack Obama]

"Revolutionary change would be abolishing juries altogether and authorizing the President to kill anyone who "looks guilty" without having a trial"

Your gettin' a little ahead of me...

[MNG]

crimethink
I see.

So with government things like SS benefits or adopting rights or community property estate provisions then the gay or straight marriage would equally qualify?

But a private organization could refuse to recognize certain unions for, say employment benefits purposes?

What about areas where the government makes private enterprises act in certain ways towards married people (and don't say "we should get rid of that", I'm asking how your proposal would treat such things IF we still had them)

[Tonio]

I wasn't aware of the scientific research that had proved that the state should recognize homosexual unions as marriages. Perhaps you could link to it.

It doesn't and I believe that you actually understand this. However....

A long-standing rationale for denying rights to homosexuals was the dogmatic premise that homosexuality was a "sin," ie a conscious and morally unacceptable choice. Science has proven that homosexuality is not a conscious choice, thus disproving that premise.

Fr. Bunny: Hoisted on my own petard. Ouch. But, I'm just a punk hanging out on the internet, not a profesional writer. Cheers.

Epi: Bad, very bad. Every time they "scissor" She (IPU) weeps an invisible pink tear.

[dhex]

civil unions for everybody would be the fairest way to roll, though the screaming it would cause from nearly everyone would be deafening.

[Reinmoose]

That woman's nuts!
Since when was marriage a sexual relationship?

[Guy Montag]

crimethink,

Aren't you a little late to the party?

Well, unless you were posting that notion five years ago and were posting it here two or three years ago too. 😉

[Abdul]

Terry Allen presupposes that all heteroseuxal--or just plain sexual--marriage has some religious basis, but doesn't seem to question why this idea took off in most parts of the world, regardless of the religion that was practiced in that part of the world. From cultures and religions as diverse as equitorial pygmies to arctic eskimos, some form of heterosexual marriage was practiced around the world for millenia.

I suspect the reason for this is because, until recently, the only way to bring children into the world was to put two humans of opposite gender into a bed and shake vigorously. Once produced, however, the children were high-maintenance byproducts of heterosexual sex, and the institution of marriage seems to have grown up around safely disposing of them. Homosexual sex, even in societies and religions that blessed such couplings, never needed a cultural instituion to maintain the byproducts of sex because such byproducts were easily disposed of with a damp cloth.

While it's true that not every heterosexual coupling will produce children, it happens often enough to keep marriage a viable cultural instituion. The only real question is now that the modern homosexual couple cannot be kept away from turkey basters and Guatemalan adoption brokerages, should they be able to use marriage or marriage-like arrangements to protect their offspring?

[OO===D G===OO]

BUT WE'RE IN LOVE!!!

[Zeb]

"MNG | March 9, 2009, 12:26pm | #
crimethink
So are you arguing that all couples be recognized by the government as civil unions, but individual couples can call their unions whatever they want?

Or are you reserving the word "marriage" for one set of unions?"

I'm pretty sure couples can already call themselves whatever they want. I can say I'm married to four cats if I want to.

[Guy Montag]

Zeb,

There is an issue in some States that if a hetro couple calls themselves "married" or just shacks up "too long" then the State gets to decide how to divide their property if one dies, and in other situations.

[Seward]

crimethink,

Social harmony is somewhat overrated and often tends to hide a multitude of "sins."

That brings up a related, but different issue: the government trying to enforce social harmony through broad measures that attempt to halt social change will likely fail in the long run.

Any two mentally competent adult individuals can designate each other as next of kin, with all the legal privileges that currently are attached to marriage.

What? No polyandry?

[Abdul]

There is an issue in some States that if a hetro couple calls themselves "married" or just shacks up "too long" then the State gets to decide how to divide their property if one dies, and in other situations.

That's a common misconception about common law marriage--that a specific time limit is required. Typically, all that's required for a common law marriage is that the two persons meet every other requirement for marriage (i.e., aren't related, already married to someone else, underaged, ghey) and they exchange words in verbae praesentum (the present tense) stating that it is their intention to be married.

[Guy Montag]

Seward,

Nobody is stopping any adult from doing anything that hetero married couples do.

You can have a house full of guys and gals mating in every conceivable fashion if you like.

What seems to be at issue here is coercing the government into parcling out the belongings of one of the people if they leave the group, by free will or by death.

Seems the government is staying out of it for now, in most places.

[Mad Max]

'Why is it irrational to suppose that the parties being human beings is fundamental to marriage but that the sex of the human beings involved, or sexual relations at all, is not? Just tell me man.'

Fine, I'll throw the animals under the bus, and leave their defense to Professor Singer at Princeton.

'And certainly one can hold that two party marriages have attributes that are more conducive to the general welfare of society than multi-party marriages (in fact, I bet you buy into these reasons) and still hold that the sex of the two parties is not fundamental without being irrational, right?'

Yes, there are rational people who believe as you say. I never denied it. I'm not saying their ideas are irrational, I'm saying they're self-contradictory and absurd as well as being immoral.

Rationality need involve nothing more than the ability to tie one's own shoelaces, form sentences, post on blogs, etc. It's no guarantee that a person has the right principles, or can even tell the difference between right principles and wrong ones without considerable effort.

[Guy Montag]

Abdul,

I was being purposfully general to cover more States.

Colorado requires cohabitation beyond just a reputation of being married.

In all States that have CLM, the cohabitation requirement is fuzzy, something between spending the night and forever.

Enlightned States, like Tennessee and Virginia, do not retroactively declare people married. They have to overtly go through filings and have marriages recorded to be marriages there.

[crimethink]

Guy M.

I arrived at mine independently, as I wasn't aware of your earlier proposal. You're Newton, I'm Leibniz.

Seward,

I don't have any strenuous objection to having more than one SNOK, but I have a feeling some of the legal privileges would be awfully messy if applied to larger unions.

[FrBunny]

But, I'm just a punk hanging out on the internet, not a profesional writer. Cheers.

Look Zuckercorn! Tonio called you a professional writer! Could you have imagined this day lo those many years ago, hiding under your blanket with a flashlight and the latest Italian Vogue?

[looks around, sees that no one else is still hazing the intern]

Rats.

[???????????]

When did marriage become a sexual relationship?

[KD]

I only clicked on the comment link because it said "69" comments... it was a sign!. Besides, I wanted to see if if would change.

Nothing else to add...

[KD]

KD | March 9, 2009, 8:23pm | #
I only clicked on the comment link because it said "69" comments... it was a sign!. Besides, I wanted to see if if would change.

Nothing else to add...

It did - changed to 70, and now this will be 71! It was a sign! I'm going to go have sex with my wife, and buy a lottery ticket. Catchya later!