That's a Solution

I have a friend who went on vacation and came home to find his house overrun by ants. He deeply considered setting his house on fire to rid it of ants. While that is a solution, it's probably not the best solution.

Apparently, the Playful Walrus, back from indeterminate haitus, belongs to the burn-down-the-ants-and-the-house club as well.

Even though Walker said otherwise, apparently men and women are still different and marital roles still matter. Randy Dotinga reports via HealthDay that when a woman earns more than her male partner, infidelity by either is more likely.

A new study finds that men are more likely to cheat if their income is much lower than what their wife or female partner makes, while women are more likely to fool around if they make more than their husband or male partner.

Well, PW, it could be that women and men are not inherently different in this way, but rather socialized differently. (We are. Socialized very differently, that is. and that's not what the Prop 8 decision said, anyway. Shut up.) Hell, the difference could simply be that in this situation, the man has more free time on his hands, and the woman is running into more men at work. I have no idea, but your solution to the problem is . . . a solution.

Most women marry men who earn more than they do. This could be another reason for women to continue do so.

Oh, I see. Women should lower themselves to prevent infidelity. It's always the woman's problem, isn't it? How 'bout this: women shouldn't go to college anymore, because people who have degrees make more money, and if women don't have degrees, they can't make more money than their husbands.

In fact, women shouldn't even work at all. That'll stop the infidelity.

Asshat.

Good News!

Like milk, only ruder.

I can now sleep at night knowing that On Lawn of the Opine Editorials has no problem with my choice not to have children. (As long as I know that sex, no wait, marriage, can lead to pregnancy. I do, so no worries!)

I've known a few couples who intended to never have children. I also know adults who were children in such arrangements. As long as they realize their marriage also covers the possibility of having a child, something that might happen even if they don't want it to, I have no problem with it.

Wow, that's so generous of you to be okay with something that is none of your fucking business at all, thankyouverymuch. Gah!

The Crazy 8's* of Bigotry

The Opine Editorials, best known for bigotry with a side order of wtf, has a new contributor: Renee. Whilst On Lawn enjoys sly homophobia and The Playful Walrus barely contained contempt for the other, Renee's style is more about splaying random words upon the screen that may or may not relate to any subject matter anywhere.

Exhibit 1:

From National Public Radio.... How I Met Your Father: A Mom's Memories And how many individuals today will not hear a positive story of their own parents meeting, because they don't love each other and too painful to remember? Why did it matter to the author to capture this memory?

This relates to same sex marriage how? Societal breakdown maybe? I don't know. It's definitely ungrammatical, in that VERBS: USE THEM is what I shouted upon reading it, but further reading didn't help me grasp any point at all.

Exhibit 2:

I just saw this article regarding fathers ability to prevent smoking in teenagers. 'Communicative Fathers' Help Reduce Teenage Smoking from Science Daily While many fathers are present at birth, who may not be married to the mother we have to ask where is that father 15 years down the road? Is he a just a child support check? Is he seen every other weekend? How does someone have consistent communication with his child, when the father does not live under the same roof. Does facebook count for personal communication? Can one parent online to a teenager? Another study to note is the disparity in blacks and whites regarding lung cancer. Blacks suffer from lung cancer at a much higher rate then whites. Now with 70% of all children, who are black being born out of wedlock what are their chances that there will be a communicative father down the road in their own lives?

COMMAS: LEARN THE RULES** is, of course, my first thought, because I don't think 70% of all children are black, which quickly turned into GOOGLE: USE IT so I did. Guess what I found? That's right. African Americans smoke less than whites. In fact, the reason blacks are more likely to die of lung cancer is lack of access to adequate health care, not smoking:

• Despite lower smoking rates, African Americans are more likely to develop and die of lung cancer than whites.
• African American men are 37 percent more likely to develop lung cancer than white men, even though their overall exposure to cigarette smoke – the primary risk factor for lung cancer – is lower.
• African Americans are more likely to be diagnosed later, when cancer is more advanced.
• African Americans are more likely to wait longer after diagnosis to receive treatment, to refuse treatment, and to die in the hospital after surgery.

That has nothing to do with raising children via Facebook, Renee. Thanks for playing!

*What? You've never played Crazy 8's? It's fun! I don't recommend Slapjack, although kids always think it's the best game ever.

** Let's eat, Fred! being a far different sort of day than Let's eat Fred!

Turns Out, I Hate the Smell of Misogyny In the Afternoon, too

misogyny, opine, editorials, stupid,
I know On Lawn thinks he's being all kinds of clever with this, but he's not:

Something to think about...

What will people think of feminism 50 years from now, or however long it takes for a more balanced view of gender issues to permeate society?

The first question will likely be: how could we let it go so far? How could men be seen as the oppressors and sole winners in the gender role system when:

The vast majority of homeless people and prison inmates are men
The vast majority of people who die in work related accidents are men
The only group of people forced to fight in wars are men

What kind of patriarchy protects its men in such a lousy way? Well, it’s certainly not a patriarchy designed to give men all the perks while leaving women empty-handed (women are the only oppressed class in history who had their oppressors go out and work in the fields for them, as Warren Farrell says).

Well, let's see here, you misogynistic spleenweasel, how could men be seen as oppressors? I dunno. Maybe it had something to do with thousands of years of oppression. You moron. Like when women weren't allowed to vote or own property. Or maybe the fact that to this day, most women in the world aren't allowed the slightest control over their own bodies: whom to have sex with and when, whether or not to get pregnant, how often, how far apart.

How about the fact that women are about 50% of the population, but there's never been a female president in the US? Of the 100 Senators, only 17 are women and of the 435 Congressmen, only 76 are women (which oddly works out to 17%, just like in the Senate).

As for the people "forced" to fight in wars- we have an all volunteer army, jackass. Nobody's "forced" to do anything. And lots of women are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Some of them have even died.

And while you may think that back in the day women sat around eating bon bons while their husbands toiled in the fields, that doesn't reflect even a tiny bit of reality. Women worked just as hard, if not harder because they were doing all their work while pregnant and caring for small children, so why don't you go fuck yourself, On Lawn? (I'm guessing that would be the only action you get, anyway.)

Unbelievable.

Martin Luther King, Jr. Was Confused

discrimination, mlk, playful, walrus, opine, editorials, same sex, gay, marriage, traditional, stupid, asshat,

Or so says The Playful Walrus of the Opine Editorials in his latest exercise in sophistry.

The truth is, we all discriminate. We couldn't function if we didn't. We discriminate against staying in bed longer or getting up earlier. We discriminate between eating this or eating that. We discriminate in whether or not to ask any given person for a date or whether or not to accept a request for a date. In decisions large and small, we discriminate - and we should. In addition, all of our laws discriminate - separating what is legal from what is illegal.

It's almost like Walrus just now realized that words frequently have more than one meaning. Or that he thinks we haven't realized this yet.

The definition of "discriminate" that Walrus is using is a valid one. It's the second definition of the word: to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately: to discriminate between things.

However, we all, including Walrus, know damn well that this second definition is not the definition in play when discussing same sex marriage. That would a use of the first definition of discriminate: to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality.

If we accept Walrus' use of the second definition of discriminate in this context, then we also have to argue that Martin Luther King, Jr. was confused. Apparently, the entire civil rights movement was based on Mr. King's inability to grasp that discrimination is a good thing, without which society would grind to a halt, and possibly explode. I doubt even The Playful Walrus is enough of an idiot to make that assertion, but I have surprised by his level of asshattery before, so don't count on it.

We'll All Be Gay!

gay, homosexual, opine, editorials, stupid, homophobia, marriage, same sex, traditional,
Homophobes can be amusing, especially when they whip out that most disturbing of "arguments" against gay marriage/gay people in general: if we let gay people just be gay everywhere then we'll all be gay!

This "argument" hinges on one of the oddest ideas I've ever heard: heterosexuality is an act. No one is really heterosexual, we're all just pretending due to cultural norms. Therefore, if being gay were completely societally acceptable, like wearing jeans or drinking coffee, we'd all throw off the shackles of heteroconformity and dance gayly through the streets, waving rainbow flags, wearing nothing but lavender feather boas and kissing members of our own sex with wild abandon.

No offense to my gay friends, but I don't care how normative homosexuality becomes, I'm heterosexual. In fact, were I to be transported to Opposite Universe, where heterosexuality is treated the way homosexuality is in this universe, I'd still be hetero.

Sexual orientation is not a choice, people. It goes both ways. Homosexuals don't choose to be homosexuals and heterosexuals do not choose to be heterosexuals. We are what we are. Roberto, of the Opine Editorials tmi's the world with his differing opinion.

When people will be taught from an early age that gay is acceptable, gay is good, there is nothing wrong or bad about it, even how pleasurable and fun it can be…… allow me to explain. Roberto is pissed off that some people want to teach children about homosexuality the same way as heterosexuality. as soon as we start teaching children the joys of hetero sex, you let me know. how many of them, when reaching sexual maturity, might not be tempted to experiment with homosexuality? and? i just don't care, to be honest. what's the difference between experimenting with homosexual sex and experimenting with heterosexual sex? besides, the fact is, very few people that aren't inclined that way are going to give it a try. asshat.

After all, why not? because if you're hetero, you're just not into that.No educator or public instance will have ever taught them that there is anything wrong, bad, or immoral about this because there isn't. once this is a policy approved and imposed by government. SOCIALIST FACIST KENYANS WILL MAKE YOUR KIDS GAY! In fact, it will probably be just the opposite! okay, pronouns are good and all, but you need to restate the original noun occasionally for clarity.

And what effect will this have on the time-honored ideal of the sexual relationship as the union of a man and a woman legitimately united in a bond of wondrous, life-giving power? is this the basis of a comic book? seriously, wtf are you talking about?

It will utterly corrupt this ideal! It will desecrate it! you used the same pronoun twice in one sentence to mean two different things. English fail. It will make impossible any ideal of the the sexual relationship once it is divorced from procreation and leave a gaping hole that will invite sexual anarchy. And sexual anarchy is simply anarchy! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! oh, that was awesome. i'm definitely going to have to give some serious thought to joining the anarchist movement. i had no idea it would be so fun.

The politics of homosexuality is an appallingly corruptive force! and you are an appallingly ignorant little man, but you don't see me complaining.

Roberto, that closet has a door. Use it.

Legal Precedents You Probably Don't Really Want

prop 8, gay, same sex, marriage, opine, editorials, stupid,
no matter what you say, Jose.

Jose Solano, of the Opine Editorials, makes either the stupidest or the most disingenuous argument about the Prop 8 decision I have seen yet.

While the California Supreme Court recognizes the constitutionality of Proposition 8 it simultaneous violates the Constitution by stating that 18,000 same-sex "marriages" will be recognized in California. This is a bizarre maneuver that demonstrates that the court has no interest in altering its judicial activism posture. It saw clearly that it could not overturn Proposition 8 but refused to accept what the amendment actually says.

Proposition 8 clearly and unequivocally states:

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

So how on earth can the Supreme Court rule that 18,000 same-sex couples have marriages that are valid and recognized in California? This is an interpretation direct from the twilight zone of Orwellian reasoning.

First of all, I'm not sure you know what Orwellian reasoning is, but this isn't it. For one thing, as the Court clearly stated in its decision:

it is well-established principle that an amendment is not retroactive unless it is clear that the voters intended it to be, and that was not the case with Proposition 8.

So, according to Jose, the Court following well established legal principles is Orwellian. Seriously?

Jose makes his argument even worse with the following example:

Let's put this in perspective by a couple of examples. If the law states that you must be 18 years old to drink alcohol but then a law is passed that says everyone must be 21 years old to drink, can that possibly be interpreted to mean that an exception will be made for everyone not yet 21 without that being stipulated in the new law?

Except that what you want to do is go back and find everyone between the ages of 18 and 21 who was drinking, while it was perfectly legal for them to drink, and arrest them under the new law.

Allow me to give you an example of where the legal precedent you want set would lead. Suppose a law is passed that requires cars to get at least 50 miles to the gallon. Under our current system, you, and everyone else, would be able to keep their lower gas mileage cars, but you couldn't buy a new car that gets less than 50 mpg. Under your desired precedent, the government would be justified in seizing all the cars with lower gas mileage and forcing you to either buy a new car, or walk.

Do you really want that?

Walrus Does Not Like the BBW's*

asshat, editorials, jackass, opine, preterm, stupid, walrus, misogyny, feminism, feminist, labor, pregnant, abortion, abstinence, birth control,
The Playful Walrus is at it again! Only this time it's not teh gayz- it's fat, ugly feminists! Is no one safe from The Judgey Walrus? (I have to wonder what this asshat looks like. Suggestions welcome.)

Associated Press Medical Writer Mike Stobbe reported, prompted by a CDC report found here.

While it shows the U.S. population is more than replacing itself, a healthy trend, the teen birth rate was up for a second year in a row. Wait, does this mean no more Demographic Winter, or are there too many brown babies in this study?

While it sounds bad that the teen birth rate was up, the article goes on to say point out that the birth rate was up in general. maybe the teen birth rate was up because of abstinence only training? it's been proven that doesn't work.

The birth rate rose slightly for women of all ages, and births to unwed mothers reached an all-time high of about 40 percent, continuing a trend that started years ago. More than three-quarters of these women were 20 or older.

Which means that almost 25% were 19 or younger. i'm impressed. walrus subtracted 75 from 100 and got 25. let's give him a round of applause!

For a variety of reasons, it's become more acceptable for women to have babies without a husband, said Duke University's S. Philip Morgan, a leading fertility researcher. you just know that's going to set an opiner off.

It helps keep sperm banks in business and is one reason I plead with men to never, ever donate sperm. because married couples in which the wife is fertile, but the man's sperm isn't doing anything never, ever use sperm banks. ever. sperm banks are only used by evil, single feminists and lesbians.

Even happy couples may be living together without getting married, they might be, we don't know. duh. experts say. And more women — especially those in their 30s and 40s — are choosing to have children despite their single status. countdown to the opine misogyny explosion in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .

If a woman doesn't have the time or personality or patience to find, attract, and keep a man she is willing to marry (or a man who will at least have sex with her), should she really be a child's only parent?

that's right. if you're not angelina jolie, you have no business ever being within 5 feet of a child. unmarried women are all ugly and mean. and probably lesbians anyway. in fact, i'm willing to bet that anyone that wouldn't fuck walrus is a lesbian by definition. boy, my hubby is going to be really disappointed when he finds out i'm a lesbian.

Walrus, you just don't like women. I'm not saying you're gay, I'm just saying you clearly do not like women. You are a misogynist of Limbaugh proportions. And possibly dimensions, but I don't really know.

Meanwhile, U.S. abortions dropped to their lowest levels in decades, according to other reports.

Good.

Some have attributed the abortion decline to better use of contraceptives, but other experts have wondered if the rise in births might indicate a failure in proper use of contraceptives. Some earlier studies have shown declining availability of abortions.

I don't think I've ever heard in recent decades, from an anonymous source or otherwise, "I wanted to get an abortion, but I couldn't find a place where I could get one." Please. There are people out there willing to fly you somewhere and pay for it. as if anyone would suggest to an opiner that they desired, or even worse, had obtained, an abortion. actually, it is incredibly difficult to obtain an abortion in large portions of the country. there are fewer and fewer abortion providers and laws in many states require all kinds of hoops to jump through, including sitting through prolife seminars and waiting periods, and who are these people flying women places for abortions? link? something? anything? nah, just an assertion.

The pre-term birth rate, for infants delivered at less than 37 weeks of pregnancy, declined slightly. It had been generally increasing since the early 1980s.

The March of Dimes likes to use this as a call to fundraising. helping babies with birth defects is bad! bad! However, I wonder just how much of it is due to 1) an increase in multiple-baby pregnancies due to the use of “reproductive technologies” sarcastiquotes why? they are indeed reproductive technologies. i think some people don't know what sarcastiquotes are for, exactly. (remember – twins born prematurely are two births, while a singleton born at full term is just one, easily skewing the statistics about “births” i'm not sure that's true when it comes to the data collection on preterm births. i know some studies count multiples as one pre term birth (it is after all, only one pregnancy), and some studies throw out multiples altogether precisely because they are more likely to be born preterm and thus skew the results.), and 2) an increase in obesity, adding complications to a pregnancy that prompt doctors to remove the baby before full term.

see, it's not just mean, ugly feminists Walrus hates, it's BBW's, too. Actually, I looked up the causes of pre term births, and obesity wasn't mentioned at all. Here are the primary causes of pre term births:

When preterm labor starts on its own (as opposed to being induced):
Infection. About 40-50% of all preterm labor can be traced to infection. Many women do not show classic signs of infection, like fevers. One good note here is that with antibiotic treatement for Group B Strep, we have seen a reduction. Other than for Group B Strep, antibiotics usually lead only to antibiotic resistance and not a reduction in preterm labor rates.
Bleeding. This does include placental abruption, where the placenta tears away from the uterine wall too early. It also includes bleeding disorders that may be genetic or acquired. Bleeding of any sort should be reported to your doctor or midwife.

Stretching of the uterus. The stretching or overdistension of the uterus has also been linked to preterm labor and birth. This can be caused by fibroids, multiple pregnancies (twins, triplets, etc.), or even having too much amniotic fluid (polyhydramnios).

About 25% of all preterm births to mothers with one baby are ended early for maternal or fetal well-being. This can be acheived either through induction of labor or by planned cesarean section, depending on the reason for the early arrival and the condition of mom and baby. The American College of Ob/GYNs (ACOG) says that there should not be any induction done prior to 39 weeks without medical reason (often called social induction), because of the increased risks. That leaves 75% of preterm labors as spontaneous. About a quarter of the spontaneous preterm labors are due to premature rupture of membrames (PPROM).

See, no fat chicks. Jackass.

Among the states, Utah continued to have the highest birth rate mormons and Vermont the lowest. not mormons

Which could mean that more people who will grow up in larger families and want larger families themselves – and value marriage – are being raised than people who will be accustomed to, and will be more likely to create, a smaller family, perhaps without marriage. "We'll win through attrition!" Also the premise of Idiocracy.

*Big, Beautiful Women.

Missing the Point Entirely Redux

walrus, opine, editorials, homophobia, homosexual, gay, marriage, traditional, neutering, license, stupid, asshat
Sometimes, people miss the point so entirely, it's hard to say if they're morons, or just living in some sort of tangentially related alternate reality and only visit on weekends. Personally, I'm voting for morons, but I'll let you decide.

The Playful Walrus, writing for the Opine Editorials, writes Part 2 of Dear Abby on Weddings that aren't Legally Sanctioned. (Apparently, someone was both shocked and dismayed to unwittingly witness a- gasp!- a wedding that wasn't legally sanctioned.) Many readers of Dear Abby wrote in response, and this is one of those responses:

In this day and age, especially with jobs so scarce, a lot of young couples are finding that by becoming legally married they disqualify themselves from things like prenatal care, health care for their children and government assistance programs. This is true. It is far easier to get Medicaid, WIC, food stamps, etc. if you are single. Government assistance programs really punish you for being married, apparently under the unsupported belief that married people are never poor.

I see. Make your commitment public and stand up for your faith – unless it costs you a government hand-out. Did it ever occur to these people that married people are supposed to take care of each other, instead of relying on the state to take care of them as individuals? First of all, nobody gets married to "stand up for their faith". Mostly it's about love, romance, societal expectations, and that really great party you get afterwards. Secondly, asshat, being married does not cure poverty. Plenty of married people are poor. I'm glad you're not, but that doesn't mean other people aren't. Apparently, Walrus is from the Bill Cunningham school of class warfare.

Keep in mind, the Opiners are violently opposed to birth control and abortion, as well as premarital sex. So, poor people shouldn't use birth control to prevent pregnancies they can't afford, they certainly shouldn't get abortions, they shouldn't be having sex if they aren't married, so what the fuck are they supposed to do? Oh, I get it. Walrus has his own solution to the Demographic Winter- make sure the poor, brown folk don't breed. Ever.


In order to survive, many couples now opt to have the ceremony without the paperwork.

And what happens to the assets if there is a split? What assets are a couple too poor to afford marriage likely to have, asshat? What about support for the spouse who agreed to spend more time taking care of the home instead of earning income? IF YOU'RE TOO POOR TO GET MARRIED, YOU'RE BOTH WORKING. FUCKING MORON.

What happens if the woman gets pregnant by someone she barely knows and her "husband" wisely insists on a DNA test before he supports the pregnancy or the child, thus leaving the child without a financial father? This is so offensive, I'm not sure where to begin. "Wisely insists"? "Barely knows"? Oh, I see, poor women are immoral sluts. They'll fuck anything that moves and then try to pass of the baby as someone else's. Someone, please help me out. Does anyone know a phrase crude and offensive enough to describe Walrus?

If they refuse to get legally married or are too poor to protect their access to my tax money it's their tax money, too, asshat, then I should know so that I do not do the redundant thing and buy a gift for them. i doubt anyone is inviting you to this particular ceremony you ignorant fucker.

Another idea gaining in popularity is that unless everyone in this country has equal rights for marriage, no one should be getting married. I can see that. I doubt my not getting married would help anything, but I can see that. I bet Walrus can't.

Again, everyone already has equal access. If these people REALLY meant what they were saying, they'd sponsor constitutional amendments letting any person get a marriage license with any other person, regardless of the marital status of either party, and regardless of how closely they are related. the old "homosexuality is exactly the same as pedophilia" argument. it's ridiculous, stupid and offensive, but haven't we come to expect that from Walrus by now?

Several couples I know have married without the paperwork because they regard the alternative the same as sitting at a segregated lunch counter, and they are unwilling to support segregation. Again, I can see that. Do these people have driver’s licenses? What about people who "can't" get one of those? what the fuck is walrus talking about? solidarity with illegal aliens? the civil rights being denied the blind? if you're going to make an analogy, Walrus, make sure it actually applies first, okay? there was no reason to make me stop and think about that mess.

Many people feel there is a blatant disregard for separation of church and state and that "legal" marriages are not at all legal, but an example of government recognizing those with faith while disregarding those who have a different point of view on what family is. I totally agree with this one, both as an atheist, and as a gay rights supporter. There are countries in Europe where all legally recognized marriages are performed as civil ceremonies in front of a civil servant. If you want a religious ceremony as well, that's done separately, and is not recognized one way or the other by the state. That is exactly how we should do it here. That way, gays are equal to everyone else in the legal sense, and churches remain free to do what they want.

Walrus has this take on it: The government can't avoid getting involved in what family is or is not, considering child custody, child support, child guardianship, and inheritance issues If all marriages were civil, this wouldn't be a problem. beyond that, not allowing gays to marry is causing problems in the courts with child custody and support and inheritance issues that allowing them to marry would instantly solve. so do you really want to solve those problems, Walrus, or just throw up irrelevant arguments to shore up your hatred of Teh Gayz?

My husband and I were married by a minister, but without a marriage license because his financial problems could have adversely affected me. "For richer or poorer - well, not really." You shouldn't marry a financial disaster – whether you are male or female. You shouldn't shack up with one, either. "shacking up", huh? i guess it depends on what her situation was and his situation was. if she had lots of money that she earned herself, and his financial situation was resulting in legal judgments right and left, why should she lose all her money just to avoid "shacking up"? moron.

Because we did want to commit to each other, we called it a "Ceremony of Commitment." And how much weight does that commitment have? Will the church enforce this commitment? does every commitment need to be "enforced"? do you only stay with your wife because you have to?

We view ourselves as being married, and I have a ring. When the ceremony was held, everyone knew what was going on. That is all fine, as long as your guests are aware of this. wait, that was my line.

GOD IS OUR WITNESS IN COLORADO wrote:
Nowhere in the Bible does a servant of God ask permission from the government to marry. The Father is more than good enough. And while there are references to "what God has joined together," there is no similar praise for what Caesar has blessed.

again, making my point about separating the religious and civil components of marriage.

These are good points. The state did not create marriage. The state merely has recognized and licensed marriage. However, if that state licensing does not go against God’s teachings, I do not see a good reason to not register a marriage with the state. oh, I see. so a representative democracy should be in the business of supporting theological teachings? since when? the state has no business in considering god's teachings at all. that's for churches. That's a big "if" these days, not only with marriage neutering (gay marriage) but with no-fault divorce and other issues. those damn feminists, acting like they have the right to live their own lives! It would make a little more sense if there was some consistency to "keeping the state out of it", such as somehow being able to avoid having birth certificates issued for any resulting children so the children of unmarried couples shouldn't get birth certificates? really? that would prevent them from entering school, getting a social security number or driver's license. basically, it would create an underclass of invisible people. nice to see your real agenda, Walrus, and not using government currency in their acquiring of "community property". again. we see his real agenda. unmarried couples aren't allowed money. Certainly anyone avoiding licensing the marriage so as to keep getting government welfare isn't keeping the Caesar out of it. again, i'm glad you're not poor, Walrus, but lots of people are. I do believe that churches should be putting more teeth into marriage. i'm not sure what marriage needs is teeth. The state may not hold someone accountable for breaking their marital vows, stone the adulterers! but churches certainly can – if that person cares to be a member of that fellowship. *sigh*