Well, well, well.....

[Lucifer Box]

Some lizards are viviparous, LB, old bean.

Which way do you swing?

[EternalOptimist]

Oedipus Schmedipus - anyone remember the poem ?

I know it ended with 'a hundred million babies, lay dying on the floor'

[Lucifer Box]

So much easier if you can just lay an egg and leave them to get on with it I imagine.

[Lucifer Box]

I wouldn't want to marry my mother-in-law either, but given that we're dealing with two people no closer related to each other than any two random people I see nothing wrong with this. Bit strange that it was forbidden in the first place (bit like unrelated step-children being forbidden from marrying if they lived together as minors... bizarre).

[WageSlave]

Who the hell would want to marry their mother-in-law? Unless, of course, she was Helen Mirren. Mmmmm, lovely!

[The Late, Great JC]

does that mean god could marry Mary Maggers if jesus did a runner

I'm not going anywhere! Mind you, I wouldn't put it past dear old Dad to have already dabbled...

[EternalOptimist]

does that mean god could marry Mary Maggers if jesus did a runner

[Chico]

...thanks to the European Court you can now marry your mother in law. From
The Telegraph

Ban on marrying mother-in-law to end
By Sarah Womack, Social Affairs Correspondent

A ban in England and Wales on marriages between parents-in-law and their children-in-law is in breach of human rights, the European Court said yesterday.

The judgment will force an overhaul of legislation governing family law which will see men being able to marry their mothers-in-law for the first time - as long as they do not have a blood link.

The decision by the court in Strasbourg related to a case brought by a couple from Warrington who were refused the right to marry because the man, aged nearly 60, is the father-in-law of the woman, more than 20 years his junior.

Identified in court as B and L, the woman and man had claimed that the marriage ban breached the Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to marry and have a family, and outlaws discrimination.

The judges were told that B's original marriage to C ended in divorce, after a son, W, was born.

A relationship between the man and his daughter-in-law developed after the man's son, left the marital home.

A marriage between B and L, therefore, would mean the husband would be grandfather to his own wife's son.

The boy already calls his grandfather "dad".

The couple went to the Human Rights Court after being refused permission to marry by the Superintendent Registrar at Warrington Register Office.

The Strasbourg judges said that the British bar on in-law marriages, although pursuing a legitimate aim of protecting "the integrity of the family", did not prevent such relationships occurring. They added: "Since no incest or other criminal law provisions prevented extra-marital relationships between parents-in-law and children-in-law, it could not be said that the ban on the marriage (between B and L) prevented W from being exposed to any alleged confusion or emotional security."

The Human Rights Convention states: "Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right." B and L were awarded nearly £12,000 in costs and expenses.

A spokesman for the Department for Constitutional Affairs said: "We are considering the judgment.'' Earlier this year Scotland became the first part of the UK to allow men to marry their mothers-in-law. Any man can marry his mother-in-law or daughter-in-law and women can marry their fathers-in-law or sons-in-law. The only proviso is that they must have been separated first through divorce or death from their original partner. They must not be blood relations. A spokesman for the Catholic Church said it had no ethical objections to the marriage of in-laws who were not blood related.

In England, step-children are allowed to marry their step-parents but only when they are grown up and only if they have never lived together.