HomeReviewsInterviewsStoreABlogsOn Writing
Willaful Review: The Marrying Kind

The Marrying Kind by Ken O’Neill. Published by Bold Strokes Books.

Sensuality rating: mildly risque candyfloss

I’m mostly a genre reader, so I tend to want to classify what I read. The Marrying Kind is a toughie — like the recent book The Bro-Magnet, it sort of cries out for a category called Dudelit, with its first-person narrative by a lovably flawed protagonist on a slightly over-the-top comic journey of self-discovery. Except unlike most chicklit protagonists, Steven isn’t looking for love; his problem is that he’s found love, but it’s not recognized.

Steven Worth has a pretty much perfect life, with his partner Adam and their cat “kids.” They’re even thinking about real kids someday. But despite his current state of well being, Steven doesn’t feel that far removed from the fat kid known as Steven Worthless he once was, and he tends to be diffident and conformist: “My idea of bucking the system is insisting on saying ‘large’ instead of ‘venti’ when I order my Starbucks coffee.” (more…)

These have made me cry, in the best possible way.



And this is the video she talks about: (more…)

On Friday, Connecticut’s Supreme Court ruled that the ban on same sex marriage was unconstitutional. The majority opinion says, in part:

“Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice,” Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote in the majority opinion that overturned a lower court finding.

Congratulations to Connecticut! As someone else said, three down and only forty seven more to go. Yay!

But I’m mystified, I confess, by this:

Justice Peter T. Zarella wrote that he believes there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage, and the court’s majority failed to discuss the purpose of marriage laws, which he said is to “privilege and regulate procreative conduct.”

Zarella added, “The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry. If the state no longer has an interest in the regulation of procreation, then that is a decision for the legislature or the people of the state and not this court.”

Yeah well… the ancient definition of marriage probably didn’t take into account taxes, insurance, medical and funeral arrangements, property issues, wills, and all the other red rape that modern marriages face.

Plus, it’s not as if people started reproducing only after the concept of marriage was introduced, nor as if they stopped reproducing outside of it, after it was.

(Full msnbc.com article here)