Joan Best wrote: > As a lawyer, I am going to side with Richard and the other Joan. > The documents we are talking about are legal documents: wills and > other probate records, marriage consents filed with the state, and > so on. For these documents one must apply the legal definition. > The be all and end all of legal definitions is Black's Law > Dictionary. This was quoted in full in a previous post. Basically > it says intermarriage is equal to our modern definition of marriage > without any subplots. That's fine and therefore let's remind ourselves of just what Black's said, which for the *legal* part was: "But, in law, it is sometimes used (and with propriety) to empahsize the mutuality of the marriage contract and as importing a reciprocal engagement by which each of the parties "marries" the other. Thus, in a pleading, instead of averring that "the plaintiff was married to the defendant," it would be proper to allege that "the parties intermarried" at such a time and place." pg 952, Black's Law Dictionary, 4th ed, 1951. We didn't hear what Black's has to say about "marriage", but kindly note that the above says in regard to "intermarriage" that:" it is *sometimes* used" (emphasis added). Why only "sometimes"? and what occasioned the use of "intermarriage" or "marriage" in any give case? > If the word is used in a lay or social sense then it may take on the > other connotations given in the various other posts. > > "Joan Best" <joanbest1@earthlink.net> I, for one, would appreciate a legal explanation of the above questions. Bob