My reply to a post over at Front Porch Republic

(please note, I am much better at, and prefer classical style architecture. And whereas there are many architects who are better than me at the more modern styles, there are none that I know of who are better than me at the classical. A classical which is invariably post modern since no one is actually designing straight forward classical.

And during the short time I was in architecture school I too caught hell over my preference for the classical. A preference which was seen as stilted, when it was very much the opposite, I have always had the muse. My preference played a significant role in my conflict with my design teacher leading to his demanding I leave his class which in turn forced me to leave the school when the dean of students would not defend me, but instead suggested I transfer.)

I mention the above to so as to help eliminate any thought that my argument in defense of modern architecture is a defense of myself.

robert m peters writes: "Just down the road from me is a school, built in the 1960's, quite utilitarian, and I am sure, very practical with symmetry and balance, or tripartite separation, or rhythmic diminution. It is now abandoned and exudes no beauty."

On the other hand, the California missions were built using those same principles in an abstracted modern style, using utilitarian materials. But yet they are typically not abandoned, nor have I ever known of someone to describe them as not beautiful.

My Other solution to the annulment scandal

If a marriage is found to be null, i.e. a marriage is found to not exist, and there are also children, simply make the parents retake their marriage vows.

Or better yet, Simply make anyone applying for an annulment retake their marriage vows so that he or she is certain they are married.

And if the second time taking the vows doesn't work out any better than the first, make them do it again until they get it right.