in crayon, before she can even grasp what SHE writes: Indeed. Note that that slash differentiates between two related but specific functions. A sterile hateroloveual couple can still do the raising part, while NO gay couple ever can. It would be, IF laws were so designed as to codify EVERY detail. As marriage laws PRESUME, as many laws do, a particular state, it then follows that restating that state in the law is... unnecessary. You might note that no marriage law specifies the presence of any loveual organs on it's parties, yet as love IS a function of marriage. And, not a few jurisdictions so still allow for annulments on the grounds of " failure to consummate the marriage ", the existance and use of a privates and-or privates clearly is core to that legal grounds. Your whole demand for such a quote is absurd on it's face, as it flies in the face of human experience, including legal procedures and tradition. Please post proof that such details are required, in this area of law. Without that proof from YOU, we can safely move on past your obsession. HTH. Andre -- " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " The Man Prayer, Red Green.
|
