As the novel's title implies, the book is about marriage and specifically the never-ending argument in my country (USA) and around the world as to its definition, legally and otherwise. Well, the marketing pitch for the book is: "A tale that ends the marriage debate." www.1m1wnovel.com

This is not my first time at the rodeo, to borrow an old expression, so let me assure you that I know the marriage debate will continue to rage and not everyone reading One Man & One Woman will instantly reject their devoutly-held view of what marriage is or ought to be. Nevertheless, anyone refusing to see the wisdom and righteousness of the definition of marriage produced in the novel climax will simply lose the argument. It's not me saying so. It's the world.

So I've started this blog to give everyone who wishes to challenge the world with their own definition of marriage to bring it on. I will (mostly) patiently dismantle your argument or challenges to the definition that evolves from the real-world hypothetical in the novel.

Lest anyone think fiction is an imperfect platform for this argument on the law and society and the institution of marriage, and that non-fiction written by scholarly lawyers or theologians or other experts is a better forum, rest assured that I've read all that material, too. I've also read lots of court documents -- rulings and so-called expert testimony -- and I'm not particularly impressed. Further, all parties regularly use fiction for their analysis. They just call it hypotheticals or examples created to test the argument.

What makes me confident that the definition of marriage resulting from the fictional hypothetical I created in One Man & One Woman is the one that satisfies truth, justice and fear of that slippery slope, is that it isn't fictional at all. I'm sure some people out there in the US or elsewhere will see themselves and their situation in the primary characters as too eerily close. They just haven't chosen to fully test the argument in the crucible of the courts. In addition, the courts have to decide that they will wrestle the arguments all the way to the ground. The recent Supreme Court hearings on same-sex marriage indicate that's not likely to happen soon. Then again, you never know. Some judges -- like the ones in the novel -- show a little courage to seek the truth every now and then.

So, again, I invite all challengers. Don't feel bad when I pin you left right and center. I guarantee I can place any of you in a hypothetical where you will want for yourself a same-sex marriage, or a polygamous marriage, or any other construction of marriage that fits the definition of "marriage" in the climax of the novel. And you will demand that the state or country in which you live recognize it, too. And you will be offended on behalf of others who are denied that recognition from the state, even if you disapprove of it personally and think you would never want that for yourself.

Finally, when you cool down after your drubbing, you'll realize that no other definition works, that we would all be better off for it, and nobody gets to define "marriage" for someone else in the law or otherwise.

D. Archangel