From the Perry v. Schwarzenegger amicus brief filed by 13 state Attorneys General (page 30):

…two friends could decide to live with each other and form a household and economic partnership together based on their “feelings” for each other, even if not sexual in nature — indeed especially if not sexual in nature.

This was cited as a “real-world implication” of Judge Walker's ruling. So, these legal experts propose:

  • Citizens of their states never marry without sexual intent.
  • Maybe those who do should be prosecuted for fraud. (Or…)
  • Maybe platonic marriage is tolerable between a guy and a girl

My head is spinning.

Not so many decades back, African Americans were judged ineligible for marriage due to hypersexuality. LGBT people are still frequently cast as sex-obsessed and promiscuous.

Today it is the chief law enforcement officers of a dozen state governments obsessed with sex, throwing those who might not be under the bus.

After all, what could be worse for social order than a man and woman who marry out of affection, desire to form a household together, commitment to caring for each other's children, if it is ruined by lack of sex?

Their answer: It would be immeasurably worse that male or female business partners would certainly rush into committed platonic marriages, destroying sexy straight couples everywhere.

Bose in St. Peter MN

Bose in St. Peter MN


Leave a reply