jack who loved tom but married jill

**amuse** · 12-18-2004, 02:19 PM

jack said i
do 'til death
do us part
with jill,
as tom and mary
did the same next door.

and for their reception
they all met with their lawyers:
jack and jill,
tom and mary,
signed on the dotted line,
agreed that when
they died
all of jack's assets
would go to tom
all of tom's would go to jack;
jill and mary agreed on the same.

then jack and tom,
jill and mary
went home
with well wishes and
health insurance
to live happily ever after.

**Jay** · 12-18-2004, 02:27 PM

for the whole two years when it would be useful to get rid of each other and actually leave all the money to someone entirely else as they all are six feet under two years from now anyway
Az going sarcastic? cynical?

**amuse** · 12-18-2004, 02:35 PM

jack and tom are gay; so are mary and jill. they can't have same-sex marriage benefits so they marry as if they are hetero. rather than their spouse receiving their assets when they die, their loved ones do. they live as same-sex couples "happily ever after," and are legally able to get all of the same stuff as "regular" married couples.

**Jay** · 12-18-2004, 02:40 PM

oh, me's dull

good idea and good point

**amuse** · 12-18-2004, 02:43 PM

thank you! i was tickled by it.

**mono** · 12-18-2004, 03:50 PM

A triumph, amuse! I love the satire you place you on modern ideas of the "American Dream," reminiscing a certain political measure recently (which I cannot mention, due to forum rules); and through a classic tale of "Jack and Jill," it fits undeniably.
All I can say: wow!

**subterranean** · 12-19-2004, 05:35 AM

Originally Posted by amuse

jack and tom are gay; so are mary and jill. they can't have same-sex marriage benefits so they marry as if they are hetero. rather than their spouse receiving their assets when they die, their loved ones do. they live as same-sex couples "happily ever after," and are legally able to get all of the same stuff as "regular" married couples.

I suppose this only apply to some local situations? Coz there are some avant garde countries which acknowledge the equality of gay marriage with the conventional one.

**amuse** · 12-19-2004, 11:46 AM

1. yes
2. cool!
3. my country of residence is not avant garde;

it is puritanical, even.

**Jay** · 12-19-2004, 05:00 PM

For example the UK, the law (or whatever it's called) has been aproved like... sometime before summer this year? It's funny in a way, you see? In the EU one country has to recognize the laws of another country. In some (most I think) countries of the EU gay marriages are still not legalized, if a couple from say, the UK, visits or moves to the Czech republic (gay marriages still a nono here), the couple has to be recognized as a married couple in a country where gay marriages are still not allowed. Or it's the same with the US. I say when some countries can 'allow' gay people to marry, it would only make sense if all of them agreed to it as well. Ahem, hope it's not too political, sorry Ash

**rocksea** · 12-19-2004, 06:05 PM

**Jay** · 12-19-2004, 06:12 PM

I mean it, rocksea, please, do you think it's political? My last post I mean, should I edit it? I don't want the thread to be closed because of what I said.

**rocksea** · 12-19-2004, 11:07 PM

O' Jay! that wasn't for you. was trying to have a longg look at the post on top of all,,

**amuse** · 12-20-2004, 10:05 AM

rocksea, if you don't like the poem "the post on top of it all" that's fine. i've yet to respond to anyone's creative work with rolled eyes, though. *hint, hint.

that's okay, Jay. on the one hand, it has political overtones, on the other it's just about two couples in love who want to have a normal life.

**rocksea** · 12-21-2004, 03:13 AM

amuse.. i like all your other poems but this i feel
doesn't taste that well compared to your other great ones.
thatz all. i didn't roll eyes on ur ideas but the way
it was written down looked a bit awkward/childish for me.
just my opinion. otherwise the poem is fine.