With Homocentric August so near, a continuation of the reduced format may serve to build anticipation for more thorough examination.
L1: The Prudecutor entirely misses that the marriage in question has continued to sail along for a considerable period of time - nearly two years - without complaint or perhaps even comment. LW1 does offer some little thing by way of explanation that (s)he appears to weigh Pros vs Cons and the Pros tend to be in the ascendancy - but if anything, this only induces speculation about the natures of the participants' first marriages. Of course, if one recalls the main parties in Thripp v Thripp, who for three years communicated with each other only by means of brusque and insulting notes typewritten on an old Olivetti, one supposes that LW1 might be able to continue the marriage, stomach cramping and all. But this is such a softball for the Prudecutor (who still managed to foul it away) that it really ought to have been L4 instead of L1. Having some sympathy for those whose stomachs are inclined to cramp, I shall pay LW1 the tribute of hoping that a good portion of the divorce settlement is spent upon some means of investigation into exactly why (s)he had previously been so inclined to retain the marriage so long as had already been done.
L2: Now L2 really ought to have been saved for August, when the obvious response would have been that of course it is only naturally for the homophobia of FMIL2 to manifest itself in the form of an illness as self-willed and self-determined as that of Mrs Churchill in Emma. For the life of me, I cannot account for why the Prudecutor chooses to waste her focus on whether FMIL2's ailment is or isn't an Officially Recognized Disease. That seems to be at best tangential to the difficulty that LW2 will be running the household entirely to suit FMIL2 until the woman's much-anticipated death in the (one might hope) near future.
The Prudecutor also completely fails to pick up on LW2 wanting to find a cute way to make the request in the invitations. This is an indication (perhaps even another indication) that LW2 lacks the right frame of mind for matrimony. Besides, as one who has headaches after sharing the elevator with a charming but overly perfumed neighbour, I posit that not only is cute entirely inappropriate but even the most mature and fact-based request will likely produce backlash. Or is this something LW2 might enjoy - whether openly or otherwise?
L3: This letter would have been even greater fun in August. While I imagine that the Slate commentariat will be referring to LW3 as male, I'd have enjoyed treating LW3 as a female closeted heterosexual - rather like the way Claude Erskine Brown thought Dave Inchcape duped him into supporting his application for a place in Number Three Equity Court when it was really Mizz Lizz Probert who had deviously emphasized to Claude how any hint of anti-gay discrimination on his part would lower her opinion of him.
Why did LW3 consult the Prudecutor? I suspect fear of being told off by Mr Savage. But LW3 needs an Esteem Boost, and Mr Savage links to an excellent piece in that vein demonstrating how anyone squicked isn't worth LW3's time. It goes a bit far - refusing to acknowledge that a considerate potential partner might decline to continue the relationship after disclosure without DTMFA entering the picture. And Mr Savage almost regards being HIV+ as a blessing or an enhancement. Still, a little of such philosophy will not be in much danger of going too far. LW3 is entitled to certain considerations, and should not shoulder all the blame when some belongs to nasty others.
L4: LW4 makes me recall Emma Woodhouse when she and Frank Churchill discuss the state of affairs between Jane Fairfax, her benefactor's daughter (then Miss Campbell), and Miss Campbell's then fiance Mr Dixon. Mr Churchill is able to disguise his admiration of Miss Fairfax's playing behind Mr Dixon's preference for it over that of his fiancee. Miss Woodhouse thinks that hard on Miss Campbell, thinking it worse that the preferred musician was her particular friend, that the incident would be prone to continual repetition. I shall invert the sentiment somewhat to comment on how delightful it must be to have a particular friend who is both loud and overweight, in order to shine by comparison.
Here what the Prudecutor misses, besides that the offender is M4 and not MIL4, is that apparently the misbehaviour of M4 was limited to a single occasion. What, one wonders, was so unique about that occasion? Has M4 gotten away with disgraceful conduct before? What did or didn't B4 or S4 do in defence of his or her wife? Is SIL4 the only victim of M4's childish mistreatment? And then, after establishing the problem as occurring during one visit, LW4 uses the present tense. Too muddled.
Moral: "One would rather have a stranger preferred than one's very particular friend; with a stranger it might not recur again, but the misery of having a very particular friend always at hand, to do everything better than one does one's self."