February 9, 2005

WORDS COMPLETELY ESCAPE US

Marriage to in-laws will no longer be outlawed (Hamish Macdonell, the Scotsman, February 9th, 2005)

Scotland will become the first part of the UK to allow men to marry their mothers-in-law, the Scottish Executive announced yesterday.
Posted by Peter Burnet at February 9, 2005 1:21 PM
Comments

Hey, as long as they both have to get divorced first, I'm counting it as no worse than a draw.

Posted by: David Cohen at February 9, 2005 2:03 PM

This is gross. Really, really, gross.

Posted by: Arnold Williams at February 9, 2005 2:14 PM

Alright. That's it. It's strictly Kentuky bourbon from here on out.

Posted by: John Resnick at February 9, 2005 2:22 PM

Recent laws coming out of Scotland indicate that its legislators must do their thing with a glass of home brew single malt in front of them.

Posted by: John J. Coupal at February 9, 2005 4:13 PM

This reminds me of something even more abominable -- marrying the spouse of your bridge partner. Some decades ago the famous bridge partnership of Kaplan and Sheinwold swapped wives (divorcing and then marrying their partner's wife). They continued to play together quite amicably.

Posted by: pj at February 9, 2005 5:02 PM

Has anyone asked for Arlen Specter's opinion on this, and will it have any bearing on his rulings as Judiciary Chairman?

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at February 9, 2005 5:46 PM

Good news for Bill Wyman and his son!

Posted by: carter at February 9, 2005 6:50 PM

Who wears the skirt at the ceremony?

Posted by: jim hamlen at February 9, 2005 10:58 PM

Is this like a UK version of a West Virginia joke?

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at February 9, 2005 11:17 PM

To be honest, I had no idea it was currently illegal. Why would it be?

This seems like a good example of bored bureaucrats trying to supply something for which there is no demand.

Posted by: Brit at February 10, 2005 6:07 AM

It sounds very OT to me. No different in principle, as far as I can see, from marrying your sister-in-law, which was not merely OK but mandatory, no?

Posted by: Harry Eagar at February 11, 2005 3:39 PM
« SOAK THE IGNORANT RICH: | Main | NOR SEXUAL PREFERENCE...: »