![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dianeduaneMy old Star Trek novel editor, John Ordover, is getting a lot of attention over the hoax website he created, MarryOurDaughter.com. (Despite the fact that he told the New York Times that it was a hoax way back on September 11th.) His intention was to publicize the bizarre disparity among US states of laws regarding what constitutes marriageable age, that age's relationship to the age of consent, and the role of parents in their (minor) children's marriages. (An example: in Texas, "...kids as young as 14 need parental permission to get married – unless, the law says, they have already been married before." ...Ye gods.)
What I'm trying to work out at the moment is how anyone who got so far into the website as to read the testimonials could possibly have still thought it was real.
Looks like a lot of people didn't make it that far, though... (See the various news stories on Google for details on the numerous cries of outrage.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-09-26 09:50 am (UTC)Actually it's not really that funny if you think about it. Gets me thinking about the Warren Jeff's trial and then about the book "The Shore of Women" and then Tepper just gets me off an a feminist rant and there goes the afternoon.... ;)
no subject
Date: 2007-09-26 10:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-26 11:03 am (UTC)(When I were a nipper, Page 3 girls could start at 16.)
Now what will get interesting is when new technology arrives. If a 16 year old is allowed to stand naked in front of her mirror, but is not allowed to have a picture taken of her, what happens when the mirror is actually a smart one, incorporating a 30" LCD turned portrait, and a web camera behind?
I've seen such items. (Look for them soon in clothes shops.)
no subject
Date: 2007-09-26 01:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-26 10:09 am (UTC)There are always people who are more stupid that you thought anyone could possibly be and still breathe....
no subject
Date: 2007-09-26 10:19 am (UTC)Those are some bizarre laws though, so a 14 yr old can get married in some state (with parental permission) but the state would then arrest the husband for statutory rape if he consummates the marriage?
Some days, I feel that the law books need to wiped clean and started fresh. There's so many ancient laws still lingering on the books that are a hundred years or more old. They have no relevance anymore. (or are just bizarre to begin with) Just take a look at some Florida's "blue laws" (http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/florida/).
"A special law prohibits unmarried women from parachuting on Sunday or she shall risk arrest, fine, and/or jailing."
no subject
Date: 2007-09-26 10:50 am (UTC)Hell, there was a time when a wife *couldn't* charge her husband with rape.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-26 10:58 am (UTC)I'd consider a setup where we start with laws that haven't been enforced in 100 years. If someone can point one out, the legislature has to consider it at their next session. If they don't re-approve it, it goes.
Each year shorten the time period until you hit say, 20 years. I can see the possibility of laws that are a good idea but nobody has been *dumb* enough to try breaking in the last 20 years.
"Not enforced" may be a bad phrase. It might be better to go with "no one has been *tried* for breaking it" (or fined, if it's the sort of thing that just caries a fine and no trial unless you dispute it).
I'm tempted to go as far as "if no one has been *convicted* of the crime" in that period. That'd get rid of all the BS they like to throw at you to intimidate you or to persuade you to plea bargain.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-26 11:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-26 01:17 pm (UTC)Next, the Spaniards'll be telling me I'm not allowed to tilt at windmills!
BANG!
Date: 2007-09-26 03:49 pm (UTC)Re: BANG!
Date: 2007-09-26 04:35 pm (UTC)*dives for cover*
no subject
Date: 2007-09-26 10:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-26 10:56 pm (UTC)Those who submitted proposals wanted it to be true, (or knew it and were just playing along,) and those who got foaming-at-the-mouth angry were afraid of it being true. I mean, without the testimonials, and the magical words "Biblical tradition," it was plausible, therefore, it was believable to people without much common sense.
PS: I laughed my bachelor ass off.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-26 11:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-26 01:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-26 07:14 pm (UTC)Now that's not a dumb law. That's a law for the dumb.
Roll them all over and turn them around,...
Date: 2007-09-27 12:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-26 11:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-26 12:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-27 12:57 am (UTC)Unfortunately, I forgot to drill the air hole before putting Spot in the jar. *sniff*
no subject
Date: 2007-09-26 01:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-26 02:22 pm (UTC)yeeearrrgh.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-26 04:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-26 06:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-26 06:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-26 06:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-26 07:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-27 03:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-26 10:01 pm (UTC)That is the trouble with hoaxes, unless there is a big sign saying THIS IS A HOAX someone, somewhere will take it seriously.
The question is what did he do with all the "propsals" and the ones applying to put their daughter on the site?
I'm still wondering if the elephant would meekly stand there or get bored after a time and simply uproot the parking meter.
How do you shower with clothes on?
no subject
Date: 2007-09-27 01:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-27 09:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-27 01:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-27 08:33 am (UTC)"Hey, only $28,000 to get a moody, needy, highly strung spending machine. What a bargain!"