Crediting women

Kristof's comments on empowering women, and Whedon's rant, and the ensuing comments on both reminded me of this:

Back in 1991, I heard Dr. Muhammad Yunus of the Grameen Bank speak at a conference in Silver Springs, Md.

I spent much of that conference hanging out with the folks from the Good Faith Fund, a community development loan fund in Arkansas* that was one of the first groups to try to emulate Yunus' microlending approach in an American setting. We stuck around after the lecture and the future Nobel laureate** seemed happy and eager to talk for a bit.

At that time I'd been reading a lot about Islamic banking, which is based on the Koran's prohibition against charging interest. The Grameen Bank's microlending doesn't follow that model -- it charges interest, like a Western bank, but ensures repayment with a peer-group system that's proven far more effective than the use of collateral. So I asked the George Bailey of Bangladesh about this: Had he been criticized for charging interest in a Muslim country?

Dr. Yunus said he was surprised by how rarely this was even noticed. Grameen was often criticized, he said, for lending primarily to women (more than 90 percent of its loans). This criticism, he said, was often framed in religious terms, even though the Koran in no way forbids this. He spoke for a bit about one of the prophet's wives, who was a merchant, a businesswoman, and I realized we were hearing the short version of his religious defense for empowering women -- a religious defense that ought to have been unnecessary because the religion, in itself, did not provide the basis for his critics' misogyny.

One could argue that these misogynist Muslims in Bangladesh -- like their many CHINO American counterparts -- were simply imposing their own pathologies onto their religion, rather than deriving them from it as they claimed. That raises a whole other series of questions, though, about which more later.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

* Arkansas's then-governor, Bill Clinton, had encouraged this development in the hopes that Yunus' successes in Bangladesh could be replicated to empower the poorest people in his state. It's almost hard to remember now, but we used to have a president who approached problems in this way -- studying solutions elsewhere and seeing how the best practices might be implemented in new settings.

** I've had the privilege, so far, of meeting three winners of the Nobel Peace Prize.

My conversation with Jody Williams of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines wasn't extensive. I spoke with her on the phone in the mid-'90s, calling to get her fax number to sign up our nonprofit as an endorser of the campaign. She gave me the number, I repeated it back to her, and I believe I said something to the effect that the work she was doing was "really cool." In 1997, the Nobel committee seconded this opinion, recognizing her really cool work with the Nobel Prize.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu had already been awarded the prize when I met him at a banquet celebrating the 20th anniversary of the Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility. After he spoke, there was a kind of receiving line in which I was able to shake his hand. "It's an honor to meet you," I said. Following that evening's reception, as it happens, I had another opportunity to briefly speak to Bishop Tutu, but due to the circumstances of that encounter, all I said that time was, "I'm so sorry" and "Are you all right?" and "You're sure you're OK? I'm so, so sorry." He was fine.

Comments

[Cat]

One of my professors this year told us the story of how he accidentally suckerpunched Bishop Tutu. They were in a crowd at some kind of official thing, and he made some kind of arm movement too fast and...well...

He apologized profusely, and they spent the rest of the event talking about cricket.

[bulbul]

He spoke for a bit about one of the prophet's wives, who was a merchant, a businesswoman
His first wife, Khadeejah bint Khuwaylid (خديجة بنت خويلد), who was a widow 15 years older than him and very wealthy. When Muhammad was about 20, he started working for her and, according to Ibn Ishaq's biography, she was so impressed with him that she asked him to marry her.
It's funny how people believe that religion/faith is all about the right beliefs and not the right actions.

[Pope Easier Rhino I]

In an interesting concordance of the two topics of discussion, I would like to say to the world that I managed not to accidentally suckerpunch Shirin Ebadi, the only Nobel laureate I've ever come close to having the privilege of meeting. I wound up not really meeting her, but I also wound up not punching her, so I guess she's probably better off not having made my acquaintance, given the apparent propensity of accidental Nobel Prize-winner punching. Or is it just Desmond Tutu? If not, I'd sort of like to punch Kissinger, "accidentally."

[topolino]

I think Kissinger has to watch out for that kind of thing. I mean otherwise his redeption line would look like that scene from Airplane where people line up to slap the hysteric.

[the opoponax]

I've always said that if for some reason I decided I ought to convert to Islam, I'd probably change my name to Khadijah.

Or, y'know, if that never happens, give that name to something else in my life (a child, a cat?).

I loved the fact that it was Queen Latifah's character's name in that 90's sorta-feminist pro-civil rights feminist sitcom "Living Single".

On a more serious note, microloans. hell yeah. And knowing that Clinton knew Arkansas needed to follow the examples of the "third-world" makes me totally reevaluate my position on him (from 'annoyingly moderate right-enabler' to 'hells yeah!').

[Mnemosyne]

An Episcopalian bishop used to live in our apartment, and he gets yearly mail from Archbishop Tutu congratulating him on his various anniversaries with the church.

We should probably drop it off at the church but, hey, it's not our fault that he forgot to give the Archbishop his forwarding address. And we have handwritten postcards from Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

[Eh Nonymous]

Okay, I can't remain silent on this burning issue any longer.

There is NO SUCH PLACE as "Silver Springs [sic], MD". There is, however, a Silver Spring, Maryland. No Springs. Spring. It's not your fault. It's apparently almost impossible not to remember it wrong. The first line on the Wikipedia entry is "Should not be confused with Silver Springs" with a link to the five places that are named that, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Springs. And consider Beverly Hills, and all the other pluralized places. But it wasn't about a Springs. It was a single one, presumably.

Sorry.

Just kinder sensitive aboutit, yer know?

Anyway, carry on.

[cjmr]

There is NO SUCH PLACE as "Silver Springs [sic], MD". There is, however, a Silver Spring, Maryland.

Can't believe I didn't catch that myself. I've spent a fair amount of time correcting people about that in the past.

[cjmr's husband]

I thought silver was too ductile to make a good spring.

[Joy]

So I'm not the only Silver Spring native who caught that? The Caryl Rivers novel Virgins is set there, only they call it "Crystal Springs" to be pseudonymous. But there's only one Sligo Creek Park in the area.

And I have seen the silver spring! Apparently my high school boyfriend thought it would be romantic to show me. I recall being rather underwhelmed.

[Jeff]

Opopo: nd knowing that Clinton knew Arkansas needed to follow the examples of the "third-world" makes me totally reevaluate my position on him (from 'annoyingly moderate right-enabler' to 'hells yeah!').

To me, Clinton is and was somewhat of both 'annoyingly moderate right-enabler' and 'hells yeah!'. There was no need for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". As Commander-In-Chief, he could have told the Joint Chiefs what their policy was and asked for a salute or a resignation. That's what Eisenhower did. So 'annoyingly moderate right-enabler' fits that action.

On the other hand, he was able to run a very effective anti-terrorism campaign with one hand tied behind his back, was progressive on science issues, and probably got as much done on social issues as the scum Republicans scum in Congress would let him. So 'hells yeah' to that man.

The true 'hells yeah' President of recent times is, beyond all doubt, Jimmah. He's done so much for this country only to receive death threats (still!) for his actions.

[Jesurgislac]

Jeff, in fact Eisenhower had to fight extremely hard to get the military to accept racial integration. It wasn't just a matter of his ordering them to do it and they obeyed: they actively did not want to do it, and came up with all sorts of reasons for resisting that read ridiculously like the arguments against letting lesbians and gays serve openly.

I'm unhappy that Clinton ran away from the fight for GLBT equality, with Don't Ask Don't Tell and not vetoing the ridiculously unConstitutional DOMA. But he was under continuous assault from the opposition throughout his Presidency, for the "crime" of not being a Republican. Had the Republican party leaders been willing to accept the will of the people and work with Clinton rather than trying to take him down, it's possible that Clinton might have accomplished more, and not just in the area of GLBT equality.

[patter]

circumstances of that encounter, all I said that time was, "I'm so sorry" and "Are you all right?"

Alright, Fred, no fair: tell us The Rest of the Story!

[NewsCat]

Fred sometimes I forget how cool you are. I mean that sincerely.

[Rich]

Jeff:

That's what Eisenhower did. So 'annoyingly moderate right-enabler' fits that action.

Jesurgislac:
Jeff, in fact Eisenhower had to fight extremely hard to get the military to accept racial integration.

Uh...for the record, it was not Eisenhower who integrated the US armed forces. It was President Harry S. Truman, with Executive Order 9981.

That said, I don't doubt that Eisenhower, who had to deal with the aftermath, did a lot to make President Truman's dream a reality.

Jesurgislac:
the ridiculously unConstitutional DOMA.

Why do you think the DOMA is ridiculously unconstitutional? I supose you could argue that it violates the due process clause of the 5th Amendment, but I doubt anyone could do so so effectively that DOMA would appear to be "ridiculously unconstitutional". You could also argue that it violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, but even if it did, that would merely make DOMA irreleveant, not unconstitutional (and again, it would certainly not make it ridiculously unconstitutional).

And yet, their is a part of the US Constitution that seems to make DOMA completely Constitutional, namely Article IV Section I:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Emphasis added.

[Francis]

On a more serious note, microloans. hell yeah. And knowing that Clinton knew Arkansas needed to follow the examples of the "third-world" makes me totally reevaluate my position on him (from 'annoyingly moderate right-enabler' to 'hells yeah!').

I've never seen Clinton as anything other an extremely bright and morally reasonable (not entirely clean but he was wading in a sewer) person who was simultaniously in an impossible political position and isolated by his own political advisors. I disagree with a lot of what he did - but hope that if I ever get into such a position I will do half as well (although I might decide that the guns blazing approach is the more effective one).

[Jesurgislac]

Article 4, Section 1: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

DOMA repeals Article 4 Section 1 with regard to same-sex couples marrying or registering a domestic partnership. Aside from the bigotry, it is an absurdly impractical thing to do: a legislative disaster waiting to happen.

[Jeff]

Jesu: But [Clinton] was under continuous assault from the opposition throughout his Presidency, for the "crime" of not being a Republican.

Carter was under continuous assault from the opposition and his own party throughout his Presidency. I never quite understtod what Democrats thought his "crime" was, but he got no support from them. I was never so proud of our country as when he ACTED like a Commander-in-Chief and took responsibilty for a failed rescue attempt that was Cclearly and obviously not his fault.

I can't think of an instance when Carter betrayed his principals or the people who elected him. If the Dems had stood behind him, it wouldn't have so easy for Ronny "Alzheimers" Reagan to win.

[the opoponax]

Just to clarify -- it's not that I necessarily hated Clinton or anything before this. It's just that very few people either know or are willing to admit that the problems of states like Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, etc. are not all that different from the problems of the so-called "developing world". Microloans for the rural south is a brilliant idea, and one that's about 20 times more creative than anything policymakers are coming up with.

[Jesurgislac]

Jeff: Carter was under continuous assault from the opposition and his own party throughout his Presidency.

I was 13 when Reagan was elected, and was barely paying attention to domestic politics, let alone funny foreign stuff. I actually wasn't aware of that: thanks for clarifying.

I can't think of an instance when Carter betrayed his principles

He opted to support misogynstic terrorists who objected to women being "allowed" decent treatment, because they were the only large network who objected to Communist rule in Afghanistan. (After a succession of coups in the 1970s, the party that ended up in power was a native communist party, which enthusiastically began bringing such communist principles as equal education for both sexes and an end to religious restrictions on women and an end to the land ownership structure in Afghanistan. The mullahs and the landlords opposed the Communists for obvious reasons, Carter went with the side against basic human rights for women, and when it became clear that the US was providing military/financial support to the opposition, the Communist Party leader called in the USSR. Reagan of course continued and enhanced the anti-women policy that Carter had begun, but assuming that Carter had equal rights for women principles, he betrayed them in 1979 in Afghanistan.

[bulbul]

I was 13 when Reagan was elected
I will write it down, but do I dare to do the math?

[cjmr]

I must have been 11 when Reagan was elected, then.

[Jesurgislac]

oh, and Rich, you emphasized: And yet, their is a part of the US Constitution that seems to make DOMA completely Constitutional, namely Article IV Section I:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Emphasis added.

Are you then arguing (shades of Clinton!) that in the 18th century "the Manner in which" actually meant "if"? Because I have to say, I think you're fairly wrong.

And even if you were right that the Founders meant Congress could decide if states had to give "full faith and credit", not how, in fact, the current interpretation of Article 4 Section 1, proved by a stack of case law, is dead simple; when a couple get married in Arkansas or Massachusetts, their marriage is by default recognized in Virginia or East Dakota: and, as the Supreme Court ruled in 1967, this applies even if Virginia has a law on their books prohibiting that couple's marriage taking place in Virginia. The state of Virginia can rule on who can marry in that state, but they can't rule on who can marry in any other state, and any couple who marry in any other state of the union according to the laws of that state, are legally married in Virginia. That's Article 4 Section 1, and DOMA attempts to repeal that with regard to same-sex couples. While the Supreme Court may refuse to hear a case that would require them to declare DOMA unConstitutional, it's certainly clearcut that it is.

[Rich]

Jesurgislac:
Are you then arguing (shades of Clinton!) that in the 18th century "the Manner in which" actually meant "if"? Because I have to say, I think you're fairly wrong.

"the Manner in which" has nothing to do with it at all. Let's review the sentence in question:

Article IV, Section I, Sentence II:
And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Observe that there are two parts of this sentence:

1) The manner in which acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved. DOMA is silent on this matter.
2) The effect of such an act, record, or proceeding. In the case of DOMA, the effect of a marriage between two people of the same sex is exactly nothing. Article IV, Section I gives Congress the power to say so.

You mention case law and cases in general, but not a single one in particular. So, until I here otherwise from SCOTUS I will assume that the plain language of the US Constitution stands.

And regardless, DOMA would still be constitutional in part, in the part where the federal government does not have to recognize same sex marriage.

Keep in mind, I'm not defending DOMA (I favor the legality of same sex marriage, personally). I'm defending Congress's right to pass it.

[Jesurgislac]

The effect of such an act, record, or proceeding. In the case of DOMA, the effect of a marriage between two people of the same sex is exactly nothing. Article IV, Section I gives Congress the power to say so.

No, Rich, it doesn't. Marriage law has always been a matter for the states to decide individually. Article IV Section I does not give Congress the power to rule on that. A couple who are legally married in one state of the Union are recognized as legally married in all states of the Union. Article IV Section I does not give Congress the power to repeal itself, and your claim that it does is nonsense.

Indeed, there's a good argument to be made that while the legal tradition of IV.i only applies to marriage, that it ought also to apply to domestic partnership/civil union laws: that a couple partnered in one state are legally recognized as partnered in all states. It is certainly part of the the "public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings". Therefore, DOMA is unConstitutional.

I'm defending Congress's right to pass it.

Congress, as I understand it, does not have the power to change the US Constitution unless two-thirds of the states formally agree to do so, and then it has to be done as an Amendment. (I'm up for correction on this one.) An Amendment to make marriage between same-sex couples unConstitutional has consistently been rejected.

[ako]

DOMA is pretty constitutionally weak, at best. It requires a fairly special reinterpretation, and contradicts most understandings of Loving v. Virgina the case in which the court ruled that the Full Faith and Credit clause meant one state had to recognize marriage in another state. Jesu's idea of applying Full Faith and Credit to domestic partnerships is going out on a limb, but on firmer ground than claiming DOMA's constitutionally sound.

Even a lot of DOMA's supporters realize this, which is why they're trying to either; 1) get a constitutional amendment, or 2) have Congress pass a law denying Supreme Court jurisdiction over DOMA (which would be allowable under modern constitutional law).

[Jesurgislac]

ako: Jesu's idea of applying Full Faith and Credit to domestic partnerships is going out on a limb

I realize that. Marriage has traditionally been recognized from one country to another, but other legal arrangements have no such tradition. But when the UK passed the Civil Partnership Act, the legislators looked at other legal partnerships between same-sex couples elsewhere in the world, and determined a basic standard of recognition, and formally listed all the current legal partnerships between same-sex couples which the UK would consider to be civil partnerships under UK law.

I think the basic standard is: the partnership has to be legally registered with the government - arrangements for long-term cohabitees that break if the couple stop living together don't count - and the legal registration has to be formally dissolved: and the partnership has to be between a couple and exclude other legal relationships (so you can't be in two civil unions at once, or in a civil partnership with one person and a marriage with another). And it has to be between a same-sex couple, because only same-sex couples can register a civil partnership in the UK.

The UK wasn't quite the first country to do this - the Scandinavian countries formally recognised each other's civil unions a while ago. But the UK was, I think, the first to set a formal legal standard so that even if a civil union isn't specifically listed, a couple would know that theirs did or didn't, and therefore whether or not it would be recognised in the UK.

And this made me think: a civil union in Vermont or Maine is absolutely part of the "the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings" of those states. There may be no tradition of recognizing civil unions across state borders as there explicitly is for marriage, but as the intent of civil unions is to provide a direct legal equivalent to marriage without using the word "married" to describe same-sex couples, I think it absolutely follows that Article IV section I applies. True, in states that don't have civil unions it would take a court to decide how "full faith and credit" ought to be applied, but the logical solution to that would be that if the state doesn't have civil unions, they have to accord a civil-unioned couple who would have all the rights of marriage in the state where they registered their union, the same rights as a married couple in a state where they don't have civil unions.

I know logic has nothing to do with bigotry, and not a great deal with the law, but it does make sense according to the clear intent of Article IV Section 1...

[the opoponax]

What about looking at Civil Partnerships as a kind of contract, which Marriage also is? Other kinds of contracts fall into "the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings", don't they? For instance, let's say I run a company, and I send my employee off on a business trip out of state. Their employment contract still stands; they are still my employee, even in another state.

Or let's say I buy and register a car in one state and then drive it to another state. I still own the car, no matter where in the US I take it.

Credit cards -- I can apply for a credit card in any state of the union, no matter where I live or where the bank is headquartered. When I take my credit card out of the state where I signed the relevant contract, my credit is still valid.

Why isn't the same true of civil unions?

[X]

late to the game, and haven't had time to read the whole mamoth thread, but was watching the news yestarday and there was a report of 2 baseball players beating each other up in the dugout. They were broken up, but had a later altercation in the locker room that lead to one of them being taken unconscious to hospital. Everyone was outraged, but mostly about hte dugout fight. They interviewed one of the players and he said somehting like "oh this happens all the time, they should just have taken it to the tunnel or further back. No biggie, happens all the time."

So in other words, this male on male violence (women are the overwhelming targets of intimate violence, men the overwhelming targets of all the other kinds) was seen as perfectly normal and acceptible behaviour. If one of the guys is much bigger and stronger than the other, tough beans.

I think the only reason this story only made the local news though, not national. If the player beaten into the hospital had been a wife rather than a teammate, it would probably have been a bigger story.

The point of this whole tirdae is that perhaps we're not framing this debate quite right. Perhaps it's not so much the case that violence against women is particularly under-reported and not taken as seriosuly as it should be, but that violence IN GENERAL is underreported and not taken as seriosuly as it should be.

[X]

Ack! Wront thread! STupid browser being crazy. Will repost.

[ako]

Why isn't the same true of civil unions?

Because they'd be unlikely to meet the legal standards of a contract. There's some complicated rules dictating what a contract is (believe me, until you've sat through contract law, you have no idea how much of a pain it can be deciding the meaning of words like "promise", "bargain", and "consideration"), and they don't extend to civil unions as generally understood. Any civil union which did meet the formal legal standard for contracts would likely fall under employment laws, and possibly break local anti-prostitution ordinances.

In fact, while marriage can be looked on as a contract, in the technical legal sense, it's not a contract under US law. It's an agreement, but for legal purposes it's not a contract. If someone breaks their marriage vows, you can't sue for breach of contract (incidentally, marriage promises are specifically exempt from any contract law rules about promises).

[Mark Foxwell]

ako, that's kind of fascinating. Marriage is a form of agreement with legal standing that is not, however, a contract. How many other types of agreement between individual citizens are there recognized in law that aren't contracts?

Where I'm going with this is the question of the legal status of marriage versus the separation of church and state in the Constitution. If there are lots of types of agreements with legal standing that aren't contracts, perhaps the rationale for the state having this category for marriage dissolves in that general principle. But if marriage alone has this special status, or if a few other exceptional forms of legal agreements that aren't "contracts" turn out to also have a clear traditional relationship with religious categories, then it sure starts to look like a violation of separation of church and state smuggled in under the radar.

I'm certainly no lawyer, as my obvious haziness on these bedrock legal categories demonstrates, but I'm thinking here of Hardwick vs Bowers, whereby in the late 1980s the Supreme Court upheld Georgia's "sodomy" laws, and sanctioned the invasion of a private home by law enforcement for the purpose of catching two men "in the act" of violating the statute. As I understand it, the Court ruled that states could base such drastic interventions in clearly private life on arguments from generic "tradition," without having to show any kind of rational cause-and-effect harm such behavior inflicted on others. I suppose, in the 1980s at any rate, if Georgia argued for their law on the basis of an alleged Christian mandate, they might have had the law tossed out on separation grounds, but by saying that a sufficiently mixed bag of societies in the past had also attempted to stop men from having consensual sex with each other, they were off the separation hook--never mind that another mixed bag of civilizations with equal claims to being the modern USA's antecedents might "prove" the opposite case.

I have the impression that later challenges of other state's "sodomy" laws have largely overturned Hardwick vs Bowers.

But for the US government to make rules about marriage, we ought to be able to explain on what grounds the federal government legislates on such manifestly private matters. Obviously, society as a whole has some interest in how we manage reproduction in the larger sense (not just how children get to be conceived and born, but how they are provided for and protected and educated and so on). But is our entire structure of marriage and family law built on an essentially Christian tradition, figleafed perhaps behind a blur of appeals to wider traditions in selective historical memory of selected other societies just as the State of Georgia and the Supreme Court gave cover to homobigotry that could make no coherent case for itself on contemporary rational arguments? Because that would suggest that people could make a strong case for overturning the whole thing on equal protection grounds and the principle of separation of church and state.

Actually of course the "Christian" tradition of marriage was a late adaptation to the reality that people throughout history have practiced some form of marriage, which early canon law did not concern itself with, on the grounds that marriage, and sexuality in general, was a compromise at best with worldly concerns that would have no eternal significance and formed stumbling blocks for people with their eyes on eternal salvation. Augustine regarded human sexuality as a deliberate humiliation imposed on us by God to check our pride, and there was a strong and broad consensus among "Fathers of the Church" in late Roman times and the Dark Ages along these lines. So the Catholic Church didn't get around to formally regulating marriage and so on until the Middle Ages, and marriage certainly wasn't a "sacrament" until then.

So, if we don't appeal to specific religious traditions, there is plenty of scope for a society to rationally arrive at rules governing family relations, but the question of who ought to marry whom clearly should not be determined by vague "traditions" but argued on grounds of rational utility. On those grounds, I certainly don't see why a secular state should discriminate between heterosexual and homosexual marriages. And if, when we get to the root of it, there is a public consensus that "marriage is between a man and a woman" but the only grounds people can give for that rule are basically religious, then the state ought not to be in the "marriage" business at all.

We should indeed then consider those aspects of family life that the secular state has governance over to be matters of interpersonal contract, perhaps a special category of contract since the relationship is not supposed to be for personal profit. But legally then, _all_ marriages should, in the eyes of the law and the IRS and other authorities such as INS, Child Protective Services, etc, be "civil unions."

And whether someone wants to say "we're married" or not should be a matter, legally a private one, between themselves, their neighbors informally, and whatever religious organizations they choose to affiliate with, or not.

Because, I swear, at this point, it looks to me like the whole anti-gay marriage thing is basically founded on the Medium Lobster's theory of "marriage is an octopus from God threatened by contamination by The Gay" expounded with such clarity on the apparently dormant (and sadly missed) Fafblog:

http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2004_01_18_fafblog_archive.html#107453680391416212

"As all higher entities such as the Medium Lobster know - and as all God-fearing patriots sense by instinct - each time a man and a woman are married, they are touched on a higher plane of reality by one of the tentacles of God's immense Octopus of Marriage, housed in Heaven, whose countless tentacles stretch out to embrace everyone else joined in the divine institute of Marriage. However, if gays begin to be married in America, the Octopus of Marriage will stretch down - unwittingly! - and touch its tentacle to their marriage as well... and in doing so, will be tainted by Gay.

From there, this disaster leads to apocalyptic proportions, for once the Octopus of Marriage is itself corrupted with Gay, the corruption will spread through every marriage in America - tainting every happily married straight couple from Joe and Hadassah Lieberman to Newt and Marianne Gingrich with Gay. The epidemic of Gay would inevitably lead to the extinction of the human race, as well as the fatal corruption and death of the Octopus of Marriage, which in turn would cause a lethal wave of Gay to spread through the Celestial Empyrean itself. "

Is this all the DOMA crowd has got?

[Jesurgislac]

the opoponax: Why isn't the same true of civil unions?

Homophobic bigotry.

Oh, wait, you knew that...

The recognition of a couple married in one country as married in another country has a long, long tradition behind it - and there's no such tradition behind civil unions. Hence the UK taking the trouble to write their international recognition specifically into the Civil Partnership Act.

Though an Israeli court recognized, not so long ago, that if they recognized all secular marriages made outside Israel within Israel, that meant they had to recognize the legal marriage of a same-sex couple. (A Member of Knesset apparently reacted with "I'm going to pass a law saying they can't do that!" and he might be able to, but until he does, same-sex couples in Israel can go to another country to get married and come back to Israel and have all the legal rights of marriage. And of course the more of them that do, the more difficult it becomes to argue that the Knesset ought to take those rights away.)

[X]

Mark,
the octopus analogy is brilliant. I knew someone who studied puritans, and she had a similary analysis to the one you have here. Apparently they saw sin as essentially contagious. If someone was off having a good private wank they weren't just endangering themselves, they were letting the devil into the community. Hence the need for busy body crackdowns (pun intended).

Regarding gay marriage, it seems to me that the strongest rhetorical argument has to be freedom. Supposedly America is the land of the free, and what freedom means is that you let people do whatever they watn, even if you don't like it very much. The only reason to restrict people's liberty (to get married to whom they want, do with their genitals as they will, etc) is if they unreasonably hurt other people in doing so. Morality barely enters into it. I can blaspheme, lie, curse, burn entire menagerie's of religious symbols, but unless someone is getting hurt by it (lying at someone's court trial), it's obnoxious, but not illegal.

[Rosina]

There is (or could be) a purely practical concern from the point of view of a Government - the spread of benefits available to married couples to same-sex couples. "They" then become eligible for tax-breaks, including freedom from inheritance tax, pension rights, subsidies for families. Now I don't think that the numbers going for civil unions in the UK are going to be so high that this becomes a problem compared with the benefits (even if they are not quantifiable) but I've seen it used as an argument against civil unions.

A small enterprising country could set itself up in business marrying or civilly uniting all sorts of people (and goats) which other nations would then be obliged to accept. On the other hand, I think that in British law not all legal marriages are accepted. There are difficulties over polygamy, and marriages where one partner is under our age of consent for sex. Conversely, what is the US response to a legal UK marriage between first cousins - would that be accepted as a legal marriage in those states where it is barred?

[Jesurgislac]

Rosina: There is (or could be) a purely practical concern from the point of view of a Government - the spread of benefits available to married couples to same-sex couples. "They" then become eligible for tax-breaks, including freedom from inheritance tax, pension rights, subsidies for families.

How is this a problem? Let alone a "practical" problem. If it's considered good and positive to encourage people to marry legally by providing a basketful of legal/financial rights, then it doesn't suddenly becaome a "problem" when those legal/financial rights suddenly become accessible to same-sex couples.

Now I don't think that the numbers going for civil unions in the UK are going to be so high that this becomes a problem compared with the benefits (even if they are not quantifiable) but I've seen it used as an argument against civil unions.

Yes: I've seen homophobes make that argument too. But it's as worthless as all other homophobic arguments against equal civil rights for LGBT people.

A small enterprising country could set itself up in business marrying or civilly uniting all sorts of people (and goats) which other nations would then be obliged to accept.

I always find it really disgusting - I mean, especially disgusting - when people try to equate same-sex marriage to bestiality.

On the other hand, I think that in British law not all legal marriages are accepted. There are difficulties over polygamy, and marriages where one partner is under our age of consent for sex.

Yes - the law is that in the UK only two people can be legally married (and civil partnership is legally identical to marriage) and that a person has to be of legal age to give consent. So that if an American girl who had been married at age 12 with her parents' consent (legal in at least one state - I remember this coming up a couple of years ago) were to move to the UK with her husband, in the UK they would not be legally married. But, if the girl were now over 16, even though when they married the marriage wouldn't have been legal in the UK, it would be recognized as legal if the young woman herself made no difficulty about it. (I think under those circumstances if the young woman went to a British court and wanted the marriage annulled, she could probably do so.) Equally, if a Muslim man marries two women, and his first wife dies, and he and his second wife move to the UK, they are regarded as having a legal marriage now.

Conversely, what is the US response to a legal UK marriage between first cousins - would that be accepted as a legal marriage in those states where it is barred?

I'd be interested to see US responses to this, but I suspect that as there are states in the US where first-cousin marriage is legal, there could be no question that a first-cousin marriage from outside the US, providing it was a mixed-sex marriage, would be accepted. (And I think it likely that the first challenge to DOMA will probably come from a couple who were married outside the US and one of whom then re-married inside the US without dissolving his (or her) first marriage. This is only likely to happen if the estate is big enough to be worth mounting a legal challenge for, but it is one of those lawsuits that you can see are just waiting to happen, because the usual, simple answer "First marriage is the legal one: subsequent marriages aren't legal until you've dissolved the first" has been made unnecessarily complex by DOMA.

[Jesurgislac]

Rosina: There is (or could be) a purely practical concern from the point of view of a Government - the spread of benefits available to married couples to same-sex couples. "They" then become eligible for tax-breaks, including freedom from inheritance tax, pension rights, subsidies for families.

How is this a problem? Let alone a "practical" problem. If it's considered good and positive to encourage people to marry legally by providing a basketful of legal/financial rights, then it doesn't suddenly becaome a "problem" when those legal/financial rights suddenly become accessible to same-sex couples.

Now I don't think that the numbers going for civil unions in the UK are going to be so high that this becomes a problem compared with the benefits (even if they are not quantifiable) but I've seen it used as an argument against civil unions.

Yes: I've seen homophobes make that argument too. But it's as worthless as all other homophobic arguments against equal civil rights for LGBT people.

A small enterprising country could set itself up in business marrying or civilly uniting all sorts of people (and goats) which other nations would then be obliged to accept.

I always find it really disgusting - I mean, especially disgusting - when people try to equate same-sex marriage to bestiality.

On the other hand, I think that in British law not all legal marriages are accepted. There are difficulties over polygamy, and marriages where one partner is under our age of consent for sex.

Yes - the law is that in the UK only two people can be legally married (and civil partnership is legally identical to marriage) and that a person has to be of legal age to give consent. So that if an American girl who had been married at age 12 with her parents' consent (legal in at least one state - I remember this coming up a couple of years ago) were to move to the UK with her husband, in the UK they would not be legally married. But, if the girl were now over 16, even though when they married the marriage wouldn't have been legal in the UK, it would be recognized as legal if the young woman herself made no difficulty about it. (I think under those circumstances if the young woman went to a British court and wanted the marriage annulled, she could probably do so.) Equally, if a Muslim man marries two women, and his first wife dies, and he and his second wife move to the UK, they are regarded as having a legal marriage now.

Conversely, what is the US response to a legal UK marriage between first cousins - would that be accepted as a legal marriage in those states where it is barred?

I'd be interested to see US responses to this, but I suspect that as there are states in the US where first-cousin marriage is legal, there could be no question that a first-cousin marriage from outside the US, providing it was a mixed-sex marriage, would be accepted. (And I think it likely that the first challenge to DOMA will probably come from a couple who were married outside the US and one of whom then re-married inside the US without dissolving his (or her) first marriage. This is only likely to happen if the estate is big enough to be worth mounting a legal challenge for, but it is one of those lawsuits that you can see are just waiting to happen, because the usual, simple answer "First marriage is the legal one: subsequent marriages aren't legal until you've dissolved the first" has been made unnecessarily complex by DOMA.

[Jesurgislac]

Rosina: There is (or could be) a purely practical concern from the point of view of a Government - the spread of benefits available to married couples to same-sex couples. "They" then become eligible for tax-breaks, including freedom from inheritance tax, pension rights, subsidies for families.

How is this a problem? Let alone a "practical" problem. If it's considered good and positive to encourage people to marry legally by providing a basketful of legal/financial rights, then it doesn't suddenly becaome a "problem" when those legal/financial rights suddenly become accessible to same-sex couples.

Now I don't think that the numbers going for civil unions in the UK are going to be so high that this becomes a problem compared with the benefits (even if they are not quantifiable) but I've seen it used as an argument against civil unions.

Yes: I've seen homophobes make that argument too. But it's as worthless as all other homophobic arguments against equal civil rights for LGBT people.

A small enterprising country could set itself up in business marrying or civilly uniting all sorts of people (and goats) which other nations would then be obliged to accept.

I always find it really disgusting - I mean, especially disgusting - when people try to equate same-sex marriage to bestiality.

On the other hand, I think that in British law not all legal marriages are accepted. There are difficulties over polygamy, and marriages where one partner is under our age of consent for sex.

Yes - the law is that in the UK only two people can be legally married (and civil partnership is legally identical to marriage) and that a person has to be of legal age to give consent. So that if an American girl who had been married at age 12 with her parents' consent (legal in at least one state - I remember this coming up a couple of years ago) were to move to the UK with her husband, in the UK they would not be legally married. But, if the girl were now over 16, even though when they married the marriage wouldn't have been legal in the UK, it would be recognized as legal if the young woman herself made no difficulty about it. (I think under those circumstances if the young woman went to a British court and wanted the marriage annulled, she could probably do so.) Equally, if a Muslim man marries two women, and his first wife dies, and he and his second wife move to the UK, they are regarded as having a legal marriage now.

Conversely, what is the US response to a legal UK marriage between first cousins - would that be accepted as a legal marriage in those states where it is barred?

I'd be interested to see US responses to this, but I suspect that as there are states in the US where first-cousin marriage is legal, there could be no question that a first-cousin marriage from outside the US, providing it was a mixed-sex marriage, would be accepted. (And I think it likely that the first challenge to DOMA will probably come from a couple who were married outside the US and one of whom then re-married inside the US without dissolving his (or her) first marriage. This is only likely to happen if the estate is big enough to be worth mounting a legal challenge for, but it is one of those lawsuits that you can see are just waiting to happen, because the usual, simple answer "First marriage is the legal one: subsequent marriages aren't legal until you've dissolved the first" has been made unnecessarily complex by DOMA.

[Jesurgislac]

Sorry about that - a network cable came unplugged, and this seems to have confused Firefox no end.