High Court Rules Nagging Constitutional


What will be the effect on marriage of the recent ruling by the state's highest court that according to the Times struck "down a statute that made it a felony to communicate with someone 'in a manner likely to cause annoyance or harm.'"("Top Court Champions Freedom to Annoy," NYT, 5/13/14)?

The Times went on to point out that,

"Ronald L. Kuby, one of the lawyers involved in the original case, called the decision a victory for 'the demented and dissident, the crazies and the critical, the malcontents and the maladjusted--amen.'"

The ruling came in response to the case of Raphael Golb who according to the Times, "waged a yearslong campaign against academic rivals of his father, Norman Golb, a Dead Sea Scrolls scholar." First of all Raphael is plainly the kind of kid that every academic dreams of having. Dogs will die for you, but children these days rarely fight their parents' intellectual turf wars. However, more importantly, what the New York State's Court of Appeals has done in one fell swoop is to turn something that was considered problematic into socially acceptable behavior. In so doing experts in the field of matrimony predict that the decision will ring a death knell for the marriage counseling industry which has thrived on the attempt to curb nagging among both married and unmarried couples. In some circles the decision by the court has been compared to the repeal of the Volstead Act, which originally ushered in prohibition. With the repeal of both The Volstead Act and the statute prohibiting annoying behavior a couple can now come home after a hard day's work, mix a few martinis and spend the evening fighting.

{This was originally posted to The Screaming Pope, Francis Levy's blog of rant and reactions to contemporary politics, art and culture}