Nietzsche, the German philosopher, said that marriage was ‘the will that moves two to create the one which is more than those who created it’.

Throughout history, human beings have ignored the cold words of the law, and imbued marriage with a sometime spiritual, sometime quasi-mystic quality that transcends the requirements of the 1753 Marriage Act and its later versions. Christians believe that marriage is a gift from God, one that should not be taken for granted. Non-believers will return to church for the first time since they were carried there as a bawling, squalling, infant for baptism to see their union blessed by God’s earthly representative. Even those who have married in civil ceremonies that do not contain the ‘to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part’ words will refer to themselves as being joined in ‘holy matrimony’ even though in law, they have done little more than sign up to a bundle of legal contracts that could have been processed in any solicitor’s office.

WE think that marriage is more than its legal consequences. We may joke about it, we may complain about its strictures, but those of us who have signed up to it, including those homosexual couples not currently permitted to sign up to it, believe that it is more than a mere collections of legal strictures. Were it otherwise, we should have taken ourselves to the nearest solicitor’s office and defined a legal contract to suit our needs.

Why do we dress up in unaccustomed clothes, spend money we can ill afford, stress over wedding lists and guest lists, fall out with family members, and then take two weeks off work to battle through Heathrow airport that we might lie on a third world beach and recover from it all? Why don’t we just visit a lawyer? Why is the gay community so determined to be allowed ‘to marry’ rather than settle their financial and property affairs via a civil partnership? There is an unspoken dimension to marriage over and above its legal consequences, that is why; perhaps it is only in our minds, but it is no less powerful or valuable for that.

I have been pondering this question all week since reading a transcript of a recent hearing in the Court of Protection that concerns marriage. My least favourite institution, that decides behind closed doors, whose child shall live and whose die; who may have sex, who may have children, indeed, who may live themselves, and who die – has been pondering the question of Marriage. We used to leave these matters to choice, or God where appropriate, or fate even if you prefer; but since the brave new world of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, where we apparently had our autonomy extended to allow lawyers to decide these things for us, marriage has been dissected by the cold eye of the law.

The case refers to the couple as JK and SK, I shall call them Jane and Sam, for ease of reading the arguments. Since the case is not yet available on the free Bailii service, I have put it here for the benefit of those who do not have access to lawtel or similar.

Jane and Sam met as teenagers, some 35 years ago; they enjoyed a teenage romance for around a year. Subsequently Sam was to marry twice more, and Jane just the once. Following the breakdown of his second marriage, Sam went to live with his Mother. He was drinking heavily; it is unclear whether this was the reason for the second divorce or as a result of it.

Late in December 2006 Sam fell heavily whilst at work. He suffered a serious head injury, it was the following year before he was discharged from hospital to his Mother’s home, and it was his younger brother who acted on his behalf to finalise his divorce arrangements from wife no.2.

Once back at home, Sam looked up his teenage lover, Jane, and rekindled their relationship. He would spend several nights a week at her home, but was still drinking heavily, and the relationship was ‘difficult’. He was admitted to hospital for alcohol misuse. They discussed marriage, but for one reason and another, it never came about. It would be fair to say that his family must have been exceedingly worried for him – as was Jane, although their relationship was put on hold for a while.

In the November 2008, Sam was hit by a bus. He suffered a second serious head injury. Jane heard of his accident and immediately went to the hospital. She has visited him there on a ‘more or less daily’ basis ever since – four long years to date. I don’t think anyone can doubt her commitment to Sam’s well being.

One year later, Sam was moved to a neuro-disability unit near to his Mother’s home. His Mother and his brother visit him there ‘regularly’ – though no mention of a ‘more or less daily’ basis, as are Jane’s visits.

The sequel to these events was to cause severe division within the family and those who cared about Sam. When reading through the next part of this post, I would ask you to consider how many of you have family who truly agree with your (a) choice of partner and (b) the manner in which he or she cares for you. Many a Christmas Lunch has ended up on the wall as the debate on these matters is fuelled by alcohol. It is a fortunate family indeed that manages to escape such divisive views.

From reading the case, I cannot discern any suggestion that Sam himself is aware of what has been said by those who care for him; I have therefore read his replies to the various questions as being made without full knowledge of the importance to which they are being put. This would be considered normal by the Court of Protection – once someone is deemed not to have capacity to conduct their legal affairs, as ‘a patient’ they cease to be consulted as a matter of course.

So, what happened? One version of events is that Sam and Jane continued their daily conversations, as do normal couples, and decided to get married. They were aware that Jane was not always flavour of the month with his Mother or his brother, and so they didn’t tell them of their plans. Not that the marriage was a total secret – Jane had engaged an independent advocate for Sam. She (presumably) felt that he needed an independent voice to deal with his new life, not necessarily that of his Mother or his brother. He was, after all, a man of 55 by this time. I can sympathise with how this news must have been greeted by Sam’s Mother and brother – it would be an unusual Mother who didn’t imagine she knew best what was right for her son. However, at this stage, they knew nothing of the appointment of the independent advocate. Shall I call him Robin rather than Mr R?

Robin has been an advocate for mentally incapacitated individuals for about 16 years and is a former Assistant Director of a Social Services Department. He does have a professional background, hardly a lay volunteer. He works through the Representational Advocacy Unit of the local Citizens Advice Bureau.

Robin had several conversations with Sam and Jane. During those conversations he became aware that they wished to marry – and he was of the opinion that Sam had the necessary capacity to contract a marriage. The level of capacity to contract a marriage is considerably lower than that required to handle ones financial affairs.

Robin also became aware that Sam and Jane didn’t want to involve his family – the reasons he was given as to why are not recorded, but as Sam’s advocate, his job was to reflect what Sam wanted.

Jane wrote to the Principal Registrar in their local town and expressed her desire that she and Sam should be married there. Importantly, she told the Registrar of Sam’s brain injury, and that he had been assessed as lacking the capacity to handle his financial affairs or to decide where he lived.

She didn’t disclose that six months earlier a neuro-surgeon had given his opinion that Sam did not have such capacity. She left it to the Registrar to decide for herself. The same neuro-surgeon had said:

When interviewing SK on 29th April 2010 Mr.Gentleman had asked him what he understood by ‘marriage’ and he says that SK immediately described it as ‘a relationship between two people who share their lives, make plans together and live together’. In his oral evidence Mr. Gentleman said that up and until that question SK had been hesitant and incomplete in his responses, but it was as if the word ‘marriage’ triggered something off, with SK giving his answer (as it seemed toMr. Gentleman) “…off pat, in a very clearly expressed and well constructed sentence”. […] Mr. Gentleman spoke of SK having ‘a good social façade, day to day communication skills, and the ability to recognise individuals even if he could not name them’.

Four months after the wedding, the same neuro-surgeon said:

When Mr. Gentleman asked SK how he might handle a large sum of money he replied at once that he would ‘invest it wisely and safely’, sounding to Mr. Gentleman like something which SK had been taught or primed to say.

Yet then goes on to say:

He described SK’s ability to retain even simple information and use it as part of a reasoning and decision-making process as ‘very poor’.

So on the one hand he thinks Sam can’t retain even simple information, yet when Sam gives a perfectly reasonable answer to a question, he thinks that this is ‘retained information’ that he is ‘able to reason’ is the correct response to that particular question? When cross-examined, it seems he was more used to Scottish law and not aware of the English case law on capacity to marry.

However, I am getting ahead of myself. Sam and Jane were booked to get married. A week before the wedding,  Sam once more required surgery for a bladder operation. Both the Surgeon and the anaesthetist were happy to accept that Sam had the necessary capacity to consent to intrusive surgery and didn’t feel the need for recourse to the Court of Protection for permission.

A week later, Sam and Jane went to the Registrar’s office and were married by the fully experienced (and aware of Sam’s brain injury) Deputy Superintendent Registrar. Sam’s family were not aware of the marriage until Sam’s advocate, Robin, telephoned his Mother three weeks later. She was ‘extremely upset’.

Relations deteriorated rapidly between Jane and her now Mother in Law, and the Mother and Sam’s brother, who I assume got the blame for not keeping big brother out of ‘woman trouble’.

By the following February, relations were at an all time low, and Jane refused to attend a meeting to decide which care home Sam should live in on the grounds that his Mother and his brother would be at the meeting. Instead, she took Sam out for the day – and didn’t return him. She took him home to live with her.

It was by any standard, a brave decision, and not one taken in total ignorance. She was, prior to all this, a specialised support assistant for those with learning disabilities. I am well aware of the enormous stress placed on anyone who cares for someone with a brain injury in a home situation. It is an unenviable job, and one I would suggest that is only possible with a great deal of care and love for the person concerned. There are few rewards.

Robin, the advocate, visited Sam at Jane’s house and returned to the residency meeting to read a statement on his behalf:

[…]in which SK was reported to have wanted the meeting to be told: (i) that he did not want to attend, as he already knew the outcome (regarding residence) since the professionals were not interested in his best interests but their own (I paraphrase); and (ii) that he did not want to see his brother CK at the meeting. This caused a verbal brush at the meeting between Mr. R and CK, who said he did not believe SK would have said such a thing. The Local Authority were concerned over that weekend that JK was not returning SK to the placement, as he did not have his medication with him and they were not satisfied with the ‘aids’ available for him at JK’s home. When social worker Miss Carney and an Occupational Therapist attended there, JK was reluctant to give them access. They wanted to see SK on his own to try to ascertain his wishes and feelings about moving from the placement like this, but JK refused to let them do so. This led the Local Authority to commence proceedings in the Court of Protection and an interim order was made on 9th February 2011 requiring, in effect, that SK be returned to the placement. JK duly complied with that order.

 It is not hard to imagine that by this time the family must have imagined that Jane was the Devil’s spawn, she had not only married their darling son, she had had the nerve to imagine that she could love and care for him too.

So it was that in November this year, the Court of Protection was asked to rule by the Local Authority and Sam’s Brother, with the Official Receiver acting for Sam, that the marriage should be annulled. Never existed. Meaningless.

There are several points to consider before making your mind up whether the marriage itself should be annulled.

1) Sam is under the auspices of the Court of Protection; that means that any financial benefits that might accrue to him as a result of his accidents will be held by the Court of Protection who will employ a specialist solicitor to oversee each and every bill paid on his behalf. The money would NOT be handed to his wife, even if they had been married for 50 years.

2) One of the first duties of such a specialist solicitor will be to draw up what is called a Statutory Will for Sam. Such a Will would reflect the fact that Sam has a son from his second marriage and make provision for him.

3) True, if such a statutory Will was made, and if Jane was still married to Sam, then provision would have to be made for her future, as well as bequests to his Mother and his brother – but we are talking about the situation if and when Sam dies. The decision that the marriage should be annulled has allegedly been taken ‘in his best interests’, which is only applicable whilst he is alive.

4) It is an unusual marriage; more ’in sickness and in ill-health’ than anything more optimistic. Is that not a time when we need the comfort and security of a loving partner more than ever? What exactly is the effect of a marriage, now that we have discounted the financial aspect, that it is in Sam’s ‘best interests’ NOT to have?

5) In view of the fact that Sam has been in care more or less continuously since the marriage occurred, I am assuming that the marriage has not been consummated. It should be none of our business, but someone is bound to bring up non-consummation as a factor. As far as I can discern, non-consummation of a marriage has never been grounds for annulment except where that non-consummation has been wilful. Scarcely applicable in this case.

6) Much has been made of Sam’s answers to various questions as to who visited him, how often, and what provisions he thought it reasonable to make for his son. Since it would appear that Sam is unaware (see opening comments) that these questions are being posed with a view to annulling his marriage, then I am reading his answers in line with his stated view that his family should not be aware of the marriage.

7) Whilst Sam is in hospital, Jane holds an automatic ‘right’ to visit him as his ‘next of kin’ – that would not be so should the marriage be annulled. Common law partners, girlfriends, and friends in general do not have automatic access to hospital patients. The ‘family’ would revert to legal ‘next of kin’ – given that they are now all at loggerheads, how likely is it that they would allow Jane to continue to visit Sam daily – or at all?

Mr Justice Bodey’s summation of the case is precise, detailed, and careful – yet reading it, one is struck by how much emphasis is placed on the consequences of marriage, both legal and financial; as though marriage was merely a financial trap into which the unwary might accidentally trip. There is surely many an embittered divorcee who would agree with that view – but there is no counter balancing argument in favour of the advantages of marriage, the companionship and support, the security of mind, the public commitment and status accorded to husband and wife. The very things that the Gay lobby have been fighting so hard to be allowed to have themselves. One arm of Her Majesty’s Government appears poised to give it to them – whilst Her Majesty’s Court deliver a ruling that considers no more than the legal and financial components of a Civil Partnership.

I will pose the question once again. Is marriage something more than a bundle of legal contracts that dictate who is entitled to a share in the ‘family fortune’ and who is a legitimate heir. Does marriage have some intrinsic worth that Sam – and Jane – are to be denied. How are Sam’s ‘best interests’ harmed by having a dedicated and caring spouse visiting him daily?

You tell me!

Elena ‘andcart
January 31, 2013 at 12:01

Sadly, it seems to me that the decision is legally correct, although I
totally fail to understand why anyone would want to interfere in the first
place.
This woman is obviously capable of caring for him more than
adequately, and with affection and compassion, so why was she not given more
help and understanding by the Social Services and his family? I thought that
this is what it is all about. Care in The Community.
It very much sounds to
me like a case of sour grapes, and a distasteful fight about who he belongs
to.

As for Marriage. I don’t know. I only know that I still have feelings of
guilt and failure because I made a commitment in a Church and then broke it. I
have no idea how I would feel if I had married in a Registry Office.

Lucozade January 31, 2013 at 07:48

Poor Sam, sounds like he’s got the worst luck ever…

Edna Fletcher
January 30, 2013 at 23:56

It seems from the case and comments here that it is difficult to balance
this case, on the one side you have past knowledge of the relationship of two
people which could account for the decision to marry, although SK may lack
formal capacity it may not be that he cannot ‘feel’ relationship with someone
very familiar- although one that is not marriage in the sense of a consummated
relationship, but more akin to what many marriages are – ones of companionship
and social acceptance.

The other side is the state system which denies basic humans activities to
the incapacitated, in which those with mental capacity can partake without
question (in the main). Using the public purse to micromanage the lives of
people considered ‘vulnerable’ is now oppressive because the legal
interpretation of their lives is ‘protect from others’ at all costs. In this
case it is protection against SK, in others it might be protection against the
family- these matters are subjective and judges play along, because it is not
their own lives being torn apart.

The state micromanagement of family and personal lives is rather more
pervasive than just the CoP type situations…anyone of us could be next,
because power is in the hands of social workers and other state workers.
Mental capacity assessments can be ‘rigged’ or be wrong, but once done by
‘someone in power’ the chance of overturning the assessment is almost
negligible.

I personally feel it is jobs for social workers and others like CoP staff,
lawyers etc. that are being protected – not the vulnerable because they are
the cover for the empire on which an entire system has been constructed..
Don’t believe me? Well all the reports of widespread neglect and abuses in out
public and privte=ately funded institutions are not exactly diminishing over
time since the MCA was brought in.

Mina Field January 30, 2013 at 22:06

Funny how different people’s perceptions can be. I’ve read the whole thing
(but will need to go to Lawtel to see the two or three pages that seem to be
missing in the linked copy), and I agree completely with the decision. I’m
afraid JK doesn’t sound at all devoted, caring or responsible, to me. The
judge dressed it up tactfully, as is the way of judges, but he made it clear
that he considered her vulnerable or damaged or otherwise ‘not quite right’,
as well as outlining, quite properly, that she had lied and deceived
throughout. Mr R was deservedly criticised, for he was found to have acted as
an advocate for JK rather than for SK, there being no evidence that he had in
fact made proper efforts to explore SK’s own views. I don’t think there is any
question but that SK did not know he was married and neither knows nor cares
whether he still is.
Anna, I am sure you have greater knowledge than me as
regards the CoP’s involvement in the financial issues, but it seems that JK,
had her plan been successful, would have been entitled to some authority – she
wanted the benefits to be in her control instead of CK’s, and she sought to
become SK’s litigation friend in the RTA compensation claim. I’m also sure
that as his wife the official solicitor would struggle to deny her funds for
reasonable expenditure and living, etc.
Maybe I’m just an old cynic !

Furor Teutonicus
January 30, 2013 at 16:15

XX Nietzsche, the German philosopher,XX

Nietzsche was NOT German.

Ursprünglich preußischer Staatsbürger, war er seit seiner Übersiedlung nach
Basel 1869 staatenlos.

(Origionaly a Prussian subject, he was, after his move to Basel
(SWITZERLAND, in 1869 (two years before Germany even EXISTED), Stateless.)

Bill Sikes’ Dog
January 30, 2013 at 15:10

The caution ‘ let no man put assunder ‘ readily comes to mind .

This case is another travesty ; action is needed .

Gladiatrix January 30, 2013 at 13:29

I don’t know whether this decision was correct or not, BUT there is nothing
to stop Jane appealing from the Court of Protection to the Court of Appeal.
Equally, there is nothing to stop her suing the local authority for breach of
the Human Rights Act, the Defamation Act and for acting ultra vires; neither
is there anything to stop her reporting the various officers involved to the
Chief Executive and Leader for gross misconduct as employees of the authority
and for bringing the authority into disrepute, or to the various professional
regulators for gross misconduct and to the Local Government Ombudsman for
maladministration. She should also take this up with her MP and her local
bishop.

If she is feeling particularly angry she can also report Bodey J to the
Office for Judicial Complaints for misconduct on the bench, although I believe
she will have to tell him that she is reporting him.

Ted Treen January 30, 2013 at 15:16

The trouble is, you end up reporting the ungodly to the “National Union
of the Ungodly” – our entire system is organised so they can continue to
rule, and we can only go through a charade of disagreement which will
ultimately achieve sod all.

GildasTheMonk
January 30, 2013 at 11:53

It is a long judgment and a difficult read for some. This is a complicated
issue because in some senses the judge’s hands are tied. His job is to focus
on a dry legal issue of capacity, not morality. It is not for him to say
whether it is desireable for Sam to marry Jane, but whether according to the
appropriate legal test he had the capacity to do so.
Plainly Sam has
extreme difficulties with capacity and if he was not mentally cogniscant to
the correct degree, then the ceremony cannot have legal effect. End of.
The
problem comes because no legal case takes place as it were in a vacuum. Tests
are interpreted and facts found to reach the result the judge things is
fundamentally the right one. But no judge is immune from human sentiment or
entirely impartial. I think what one can derive from the judgment is a
somewhat nagging sense of “we know best” by the agents of the state as against
unconditional love from a caring woman for her first love, which is a very
moving story.
The judge may have felt he had no option; he would have been
appealed if he had gone the other way.
So I have a nagging sense that
result is the “wrong” one, but it is hard to say in such cases.

Woman on a Raft
January 30, 2013 at 16:03

The result is the right one and the judge is to be commended for his
thorough exploration including making sure that everyone is recorded as
having their say. But he’s right because of the ancient maxim and warning
‘hard cases make bad law’.

Put it another way. We don’t compel people to marry because it would be a
good idea, regardless of their capacity to contract. We don’t forcibly
divorce people, even though we can all think of cases where that would be a
very good plan whether Punch and Judy want it or not. We don’t even allow
families to coerce their children in to marriage, not even if the parents
genuinely believe it is the right thing, not even if they are right and it
would be a very good thing. We don’t ask if the handbasket is going to hell
or heaven; we only check if the parties are both capable of understanding
what they are getting in to, of age, capacity, eligibility etc.

In this case, someone without the capacity to consent was wheeled through
a ceremony by someone with the very best of intentions. Next time the
intentions might not be so good. The time after that it will be someone
arguing that their intended spouse should be compelled to marry them. How
far do you want to dispense with capacity? Hospital marriages are done, but
even there the authorities like to be careful about capacity despite the
shortness of time for some of the marriages.

It’s terribly sad that he didn’t get on with marrying when he was only
drunk and having trouble with his capacity going in and out with the tide,
but he didn’t and we must assume that this was the last competent decision
he made before his second accident. Life is finite.

I happen to hold a mystical reverence for marriage but it doesn’t trump
capacity to consent; it is conditional upon it.

Mudplugger January 30, 2013 at 11:40

The whole ‘marriage’ thing is a combination of history and vocabulary. It
suited the authorities to have a form of ‘approved partnership’ to regulate
inheritance and to create some implied responsibility for the output results
of man’s natural urges. They came up with ‘marriage’, then chose to delegate
some of the boring adminstrative work to selected churches, saving the State
Registrar from much of that turgid stuff.

Hence ‘marriage’ (which is really only a ‘state approved partnership’)
became entangled with the religious baggage, and so it remains, creating
problems now when the same word is aimed to apply to ‘state approved gay
partnerships’ – the god-botherers get upset because they think it’s their
territory alone whereas, in practice, they were just being used as free admin
clerks.

The solution to to get back to the basic task. It is up to the Parliament
to decide what formats of partnership are approved, all such partnerships
should then be formally approved by the State Registrar. If any of the
pairings then wish to introduce a religious element into their own
partnership, they should be free to do that, but quite separate from the
formal registration and with no additional legal consequences. If they, or
anyone else, wishes to use the term ‘marriage’ for their pairing, that’s up to
them – as far as the law is concerned, they would just be in a registered
partnership like any other approved pairing. If the churches don’t like it,
tough – to sustain their ‘business’ they need to be flexible, just like any
other trade.

That’s the admin bit – in practice all our personal views on ‘marriage’
will inevitably be coloured by our own close experiences. I married Mrs
Mudplugger many years ago and don’t regret it – however, times and cultures
change and, put in the same position today, decades later, we probably
wouldn’t feel the need to go through that ceremonial process. I don’t think
our ‘bond’ has been made any stronger or weaker for having that ceremony
attached – we are just two people who got on well together, and still get on
well together on all sorts of levels. Call it a ‘marriage’ if you wish, we’re
just two best mates who would die for each other. Who cares what it’s called
?

MTG January 30, 2013 at 00:54

Nietzsche and Wilde shared comic views of wedlock and the pair would have
been kinder to women had they married.

AndrewWS January 30, 2013 at 10:39

Wilde *was* married, and begat two sons.

MTG January 30, 2013 at 12:24

I was drawing attention to the laws of that era preventing them
marrying each other.

Bill
Sticker January 30, 2013 at 00:27

“Is marriage something more than a bundle of legal contracts?” Yes and then
not quite yes. The answer is very complicated, and in most cases, highly
personal.

Regardless; the legal act is an extension of the human need, not vice
versa. Marriage would exist in one form or another, without state sanction.
Yet legal recognition is required for marriages ‘sanctification’ under law,
with all its attendant tax breaks.

As for deciding who is ‘fit’ to undertake the legal contract of marriage;
this is dangerous ground. Letting local authorities with all their confusing
(and often shifting) agendas decide, even more so. From observation, I would
say that ‘Sams’ overall quality of life would be better served by a committed
spouse caring for him daily than all the ‘professional’ care in the world.

Belsay Bugle
January 29, 2013 at 20:53

Marriage is a fascinating thing. It is something the church sanctified, but
never claimed to create; it recognised it as a ‘mystical union’ that exists
almost independently of the two people claiming to contract it.
In reality,
most so-called marriages are not ‘mystical unions’ no matter how hard people
try to pretend they have one, hoping that going through the ceremony itself
will transform something that isn’t a marriage into that mystical union.

But God (or truth, or whatever you wish to call it) creates marriages by
joining two people together and once that happens, no man can ‘put them
asunder’. It is just a matter of fact that those who are truly married cannot
be put asunder by anything that anyone else can do. And even though no
ceremony can create a marriage, it is valuable to the parties and to their
family and to the wider community, to have a public recognition of the fact
that they have been married – that a marriage has happened to them and to have
such a happening celebrated.

Marriages are not therefore created by human will, no matter how hard we
like to pretend otherwise.
The state has now jumped in saying it can create
marriage. But it can no more do that than the church. It can’t even sanctify a
mystical union because it doesn’t recognise such a thing exists.

jonseer January 29, 2013 at 19:39

I read somewhere that marriage is the only remaining legal form of
bondage.
Whether or not true, it is a comment.
More to the point is your
essay on “Sam” & family.
May I be permitted to look at this from a
different perspective please Anna.
The longer this lunacy continues to
furnish the legal establishment with money from the taxpayer, the more poverty
stricken the taxpayer will become.
Does anyone working their cobs off,
either on schedule D or PAYE give a f@@k what happens to Sam and or Jane
any-more than what might happen to the rest of us struggling to get to work on
time despite snow, leaves on the line, closed Motorways etc.
Just what is
the cost of this pantomime to us all ?
An MP made the comment that 70% of
the NH is used for 30% of the population. I have used it once in my life &
I am 76.
It has become the province of strange bizarre social & medical
experimentation. It is no longer a benefit to the normal, where kids can have
their tonsils out or an appendix operation.
Sex change ops, stomach
stapling , essential cosmetic surgery etc, etc.
Given the option I would
close it to all but the under 21′s and over 65′s. The rest pay. Rant
over.
Thanks.

Budvar January 29, 2013 at 18:04

I have to say, having been married the once, I doubt I’d do it again. Not
that I have anything against “Commitment” as such, more of a shall we
opposition to something state sanctioned.
To put this into context, I once
asked a mate if the pic was of his wife. He said “Oh no, we’re not
married..blah…blah”. I said “I asked if it was the wife, not whether you’d
been through a state sanctioned..yada…yada”. I pointed out that if he’d been
doing young Tracy down the office on the side, you think the “I don’t see any
rings on these fingers baby” would make it all ok?
He conceded that yes, it
was the wife.