First of all, I want to know who made this “law” about in-laws. How did this “rule” about adding whole broods of strangers from strange places into our immediate family circle come about? What legislative body in their right minds crafted a law, then debated and voted for it in order to make it so? And can we impeach these Cretins who did this heinous act? That’s probably what it was called, too: “The Heinous Act”. And how far does this Heinous Act extend, anyways? Can some distant brother in-law’s cousin’s third half-sister still lawfully claim a spot at the Thanksgiving table if they’ve got the proper documentation? Who enforces these laws, anyways? Could you get a visit from the “In-Law Police” if you turn away legitimate legislated distant family?
Or perhaps this whole “in-law” idea was the edict of some mad king drunk with power to make people prefer his iron hand of tyranny over the terror of having strange distant “in laws” drop in on you at unexpected and inopportune times? I wouldn’t doubt it.
“No!” you say. “Please! Rule us with an iron fist, but don’t let aunt in-law Edna suddenly drop in on our quiet Christmas morning with her off-key accordion and puking pet monkey with an infected ear and “Mongo the Parrot” who only knows dirty limericks and bawdy sea shanties! Please! Oppress us! We’d MUCH rather make bricks without straw!”
Correction. Not mad king. Smart king. But we’re left with his clever edict, aren’t we?
In-laws are not Biblical. We are going against the Will of God by acquiescing to this “grafted family” concept. I mean, in Genesis, for crying out loud, it talks about how a man shall LEAVE his father and mother and CLEAVE to his wife. “Leaving and Cleaving” that’s how I read it. A man leaves the parents and family and cleaves to his wife. Period. I see NOTHING in the Bible about getting married and suddenly being obliged to graft into your newly formed family unit whole tribes of brothers and uncles in-laws and quarter cousins by a second marriage named Morty from Jersey with a honking sinus condition. I have scanned the entire Bible from cover to cover and I see NO mention of any obligation to Morty from Jersey with a honking sinus condition. None.
It’s got an exponentially explosive feature, too, if you think about it. The adding of in-laws never ends. Say you’ve got a brother-in-law who then gets married and he is obliged to graft a mother-in-law into his family. Now what does that mean to you? What have you got? A Mother-In-Law Once Removed? Can she be removed any further? And what if this mother in-law has a cousin in-law named Morty from Jersey with a honking sinus condition? And HE’S got an accordion playing aunt in-law Edna with a puking pet monkey? There’s no end to this! Can we get insurance for this kind of thing? Or some kind of “In-Law-B-Gone” spray product with which we can saturate the perimeter of our house? Something?
I wonder if the law that enacted “in-laws” can be repealed? Does it take a “super-majority” to do so? How do we lobby for this sort of thing? Would anyone vote against it? Would any jury in the world convict us if we tarred and feathered someone who did vote against it? Would “defrocked in-laws” in one country still be legitimate in other countries without such progressive in-law repealing legislation? Would we suddenly create vast roving hoards of “in-law refugees”? Would we develop “in-law” ghettos in Third Cousin Countries?
“Hello, I’m Biff Sorensen, spokesman for Missions For In-Laws. For just pennies a day, you can help an in-law who has nowhere to go, no one to drop in on. This is Edna. She used to happily sing bawdy sea shanties with her parrot Mongo. Now, since the Heinous Act has been repealed, she lives in a shanty house made of pressed bits of her off-key accordion. And just a few short days ago, she had to eat her beloved Mongo the Parrot. Won’t you help?”
I don’t think we can do something about this too soon. Morty from Jersey just called, said he’s coming over.
Read more articles by David Ian or search for articles on the same topic or others.
Now that you mention it, I did buy my dad a small bottle of "Ex-Spouse Removal" for his 40th birthday. I wonder if the folks that made that stuff could come up with the in-law removal spray? I'd buy the stuff by the case. Incidentally, you forgot to mention "Granny pees-a-lot" and "Snoring Sue". Perhaps I should write my own story, fiction of course. Thanks for the laugh. This is very appropriate seeing as how I'm about to receive a whole truckload of them in about 10 hours. I can hardly wait.