From the Perry v. Schwarzenegger amicus brief filed by 13 state Attorneys General (page 30):
…two friends could decide to live with each other and form a household and economic partnership together based on their “feelings” for each other, even if not sexual in nature — indeed especially if not sexual in nature.
This was cited as a “real-world implication” of Judge Walker's ruling. So, these legal experts propose:
- Citizens of their states never marry without sexual intent.
- Maybe those who do should be prosecuted for fraud. (Or…)
- Maybe platonic marriage is tolerable between a guy and a girl
My head is spinning.
Not so many decades back, African Americans were judged ineligible for marriage due to hypersexuality. LGBT people are still frequently cast as sex-obsessed and promiscuous.
Today it is the chief law enforcement officers of a dozen state governments obsessed with sex, throwing those who might not be under the bus.
After all, what could be worse for social order than a man and woman who marry out of affection, desire to form a household together, commitment to caring for each other's children, if it is ruined by lack of sex?
Their answer: It would be immeasurably worse that male or female business partners would certainly rush into committed platonic marriages, destroying sexy straight couples everywhere.