There’s been a lot of talk about the Marriage Bill, so while I’m ambivalent over nuptials, I figured I should at least read it. One particular section left me in stitches.
Where do I even begin? Okay, let’s start here. For that clause to be included in the bill, it must have happened more than once. I mean, one assumes our learned friends don’t just pull legal articles out of their nether regions, right? It’s like those insane warnings on the labels of
Chinese consumer products. By the time you’re warned not to stick wires up your nose, at least three people must have tried it, yes?
Okay. Now, at what point do you take your spouse to court for refusing to sleep with you? How does that conversation even begin? And even if you DID take them to court, would you really want to be in bed with someone who’s only there via court order? Wouldn’t that take some of the enjoyment away?
Also, where’s your pride? Wouldn’t it be just a *little bit* embarrassing explaining to a judge, lawyers, and witnesses that you’ve gathered them all in that serious-looking courtroom because you’re not getting any? Wouldn’t it be easier to bribe, charm, or entice your spouse into bed with gifts, cash, or porn?
But then again, maybe it’s just me. I don’t see anyone else complaining or even remarking over that particular sentence. Maybe for the rest of the population, it’s perfectly okay to get a court order that demands marital sex. After all, wasn’t that the reasoning behind the Mututho Law?
♫ Before tomorrow comes ♫ Alter Bridge ♫