The (biased) writer says the case is about "whether the women will be required to maintain a bond they’ve tried for almost two years to sever." Please. A short, quick trip to D.C. would end it. The only thing keeping them together now is their determination to stir the pot.

Since they remain married by choice, the victim card can no longer be played.

Which thought brings up another thought. If autonomy is all it is cracked up to be, why is it a sign of autonomy to require new conventions to justify oneself?

What was the point of calling it marriage in the first place?

I am coming to the conclusion that the besetting vice of the modern age is phariseeism not lust. In the eighteenth century they were horrifically lustful; it was actually fashionable for aristocrats to keep mistresses(and misters for that matter). But few deemed it necessary to seek respectability for their sin.