June 23, 2006


Seven Canadian Women to Wed . . . Themselves (Hilary White, June 22, 2006, LifeSiteNews.com)

The fallout of the dissolution of the legal institution of marriage in Canada is proving the recently established maxim that the modern world is impervious to satire.

While homosexual activists insisted that with the redefinition of marriage to allow them to register their partnerings, the whole affair would be closed, activists defending marriage warned that the redefinition had kicked the supports out from under the institution. Many warned that taking marriage out of its natural context and re-defining it according to the whims of special interest groups would lead inevitably to polygamy being included as a religious rights issue.

Now a group of women in Vancouver are going one better than mere polygamy and are moving into previously unexplored realms of narcissism and marrying themselves. One said, “You can't commit to anyone else unless you're in touch with yourself.”

Even Narcissus at least loved only a reflection of himself.

Posted by Orrin Judd at June 23, 2006 10:40 AM

At least this will simplify the distribution of property after a divorce.

Posted by: Brandon at June 23, 2006 11:48 AM

The fact is that the legal definition of marriage as one man and one woman IS arbitrary. The problem for the critics is that ANY legal definition is arbitrary, and so even the slightest change leads inevitably to the utter destruction of marriage through trivialization. Of course, one might say that for the critics, that's a feature, not a bug. But only a cynic would say that...

Posted by: b at June 23, 2006 12:06 PM

No, it isn't:

002:023 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my
flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of

002:024 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and
shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Posted by: oj at June 23, 2006 12:11 PM

oj: That's why I said the "legal" definition. I am well aware of the actual definition of what marriage really is.

Posted by: b at June 23, 2006 12:17 PM

Yes, so the legal definition isn't arbitrary. All the law does is encode your society's morality.

Posted by: oj at June 23, 2006 12:21 PM

Have to look to the legislative history, I guess.

Posted by: h-man at June 23, 2006 12:36 PM

Isn't the legislative history what oj just quoted?

Posted by: pj at June 23, 2006 1:46 PM


Yes and it is an adequate definition of marriage under any circumstance legal or otherwise.

I was making a feeble attempt at a joke relating to a discussion from yesterday regarding legislators "fixing" the legislative record so that courts might on occasion interpret a law in a fashion opposite of the clear language of the statute.

For instance during passage of a law relating to marriage Senator Foghorn J. Calhoun slips a speech into the record indicating that it is his intention that a man be allowed to marry his rottweiler. I think the court should to a large extent ignore the legislative record and merely look to the text of the law. OJ's view is contra.

Posted by: h-man at June 23, 2006 2:42 PM


No, the text is meaningless. It's the history of marriage that matters.

Posted by: oj at June 23, 2006 3:02 PM

Correct and the comments of legislators as to their "intent" is also meaningless.

Posted by: h-man at June 23, 2006 3:17 PM

Any comment by any given legislator is indeed, except for the Legislator, as Washington called Him.

That appears to be the source of your confusion, the belief that every bit of evidence in a case is due the same weight. Neither history nor law works that way.

Posted by: oj at June 23, 2006 5:01 PM

Marriage laws are actually a perfect example for David. The failure of legislatures to include specific terminology on gender and genus in marriage laws does not mean that it applies to anyone other than a man and a women.

Posted by: oj at June 23, 2006 5:27 PM