I profess, in the sincerity of my heart, that I have not the least personal interest in endeavoring to promote this necessary work, having no other motive than the public good of my country. – Jonathan Swift
Though Alaskan politics isn’t usually a major topic of online commentary, this article from the Anchorage Daily News of last Thursday (March 24th) caused quite a stir; it’s about a local politician stating that he favors the criminalization of extramarital sex:
Gov. Sean Parnell’s appointee for the panel that nominates state judges testified Wednesday that he would like to see Alaskans prosecuted for having sex outside of marriage…One blog post on the [website of] Eagle Forum Alaska…[a social conservative organization in which candidate Don Haase holds a leadership position] praised efforts at criminalizing adultery in Michigan, and [Alaska state senator] Paskvan asked Haase if he thought it should be a felony in Alaska. “I don’t see that that would rise to the level of a felony,” Haase said.
Paskvan: “Do you believe it should be a crime?”
Haase: “Yeah, I think it’s very harmful to have extramarital affairs. It’s harmful to children, it’s harmful to the spouse who entered a legally binding agreement to marry the person that’s cheating on them.”
Paskvan: “What about premarital affairs — should that be a crime?”
Haase: “I think that would be up to the voters certainly. If it came before (the state) as a vote, I probably would vote for it…I can see where it would be a matter for the state to be involved with because of the spread of disease and the likelihood that it would cause violence. I can see legitimate reasons to push that as a crime.”Haase then asked why those questions were relevant. “You are injecting yourself into the judicial system and so I think it’s fair inquiry,” Paskvan replied. “If you have a motivation to limit who would be advanced to a judgeship…then your beliefs and attitudes are important,” Paskvan said. Haase said he opposed judicial activism, and cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision legalizing abortion in Roe v. Wade as an example. In his campaign for state House last year, Haase made his opposition to abortion a central theme. Abortion is also a prominent theme on the Eagle Forum Alaska blog…
You’ll have to pardon my amusement at the general consternation which has arisen in the media over this control freak’s position; it’s another case of “welcome to our world”, since whores constantly have to endure self-appointed “guardians of the public morals” advocating criminalization of our private sex lives, often using these same excuses. But though many of you read this article last week, most probably missed this related story from this morning’s Huffington Post:
A Texas legislator said he agrees with the Alaskan politician who last week stated that extramarital sex should be illegal, but he proposes a way to minimize social repercussions from the ban while making money for the state. State Representative Fairlay D. Sloop (D – Telegraph) suggests that Texas create a legal “temporary marriage” similar to that found in Islamic law.
“I know we’ve got this bill pending to ban Texas courts from considering Sharia, but even if that passes it doesn’t mean we can’t make a law similar to one of theirs,” said Sloop in a press conference this morning. “After all, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and this would let the state control the spread of disease and even out-of-wedlock pregnancy.”
In Shi’a Islam, the Nikāh al-Mut‘ah (temporary marriage) is a marriage of fixed term which is decided at the outset and automatically dissolves at the end of that time. The term can be as short as an hour, and the only financial compensation the woman receives is that decided upon when the contract is established. A reporter familiar with the custom asked Sloop if his proposed Texas version would include the mandatory three-month waiting period between such marriages required in Islamic law.
“Well, that’s something we can hash out if the bill gets that far,” said Sloop; “in its current form there is no such requirement. I figure that way, we can even tax prostitution without legalizing it. If a prostitute wants to stay legal, she can just contract a temporary marriage with her john, pay her $10 fee at the courthouse and get married for an hour. It would also help to fight human trafficking because we could check IDs, and keep underage girls from getting into it.”
While I think Sloop’s proposal hasn’t a snowball’s chance in South Texas of passing, and I’m extremely skeptical of his idea that whores would be willing to limit themselves to unmarried customers and register at the courthouse several times a day merely to stay technically legal, I have to congratulate him for original thinking. Is his suggestion any more farfetched than the idea that it’s possible to entirely eradicate an institution which has existed since before we were human, or the bizarre neofeminist belief that one woman’s private sexual behavior somehow magically affects every other woman? And if states have the power to create a new form of marriage which never existed prior to this century, why not the power to create a secular American version of an established form of traditional marriage from another culture? In some ways, it makes a lot more sense than traditional marriage for the Americans of today.
Hey babycakes, the link for Huffington Post in the article says “Page Not Found”
Hmm, that’s odd; does the last link at the end work for you?
WENCH! LMAO
😀
People.
Always obsessed with who’s screwing.
I share Parnell’s concern for the destruction of marriage in America, but I don’t think extra-marital affairs are the problem. Ending your marriage because your spouse HAD an affair is the problem.
Rather than criminalizing extra-marital sex, I think it should be REQUIRED. Every two (or five or whatever) years, you are required to go and fuck someone else (professionals preferred) and since everyone does it, you’ll have to find some other reason to break up your marriage and put your children through the hell that is divorce.
Vote for me! Mandatory fucking!
LOL! 😀
Andrea,
you have my vote.
I was faithful for 23 years. Apparently it does not count!
No, no it doesn’t. You were probably a ‘nice guy’ to her as well, I’m sure.
I don’t usually like making customs mandatory, but I may make an exception for this.
I probably will vote for you!!
Second what Andrea says, but I want a hall pass every year…no wait, every month! 😉
This Guy is a Jerk.
He might be a Muslim and want our heads loped off. Do you have a email for this guy Maggie.? Is there a board to post on his comment?
Hugs…..JOYCE
Joyce, be sure you click on the link at the very end.
I see Now Maggie,
Ya had me going there.
Hugs..JOYCE
I agree with bdevereaux: wench! Still, would it be that bad an idea? They could say they never legalized or decriminalized prostitution, and yet working girls could work free from the risk of arrest. It would never pass, of course, and even I wouldn’t support it w/o a couple of modifications, but hey. Might make for a good plot device in some near-future story.
There was “a modest proposal” in Omni Magazine many years ago (you know, back when there was an Omni Magazine?). Had to do with using butter for rocket fuel so that Sen. Proxmire of Wisconsin would become a pro-space politician.
Well, good satire always has a kernel of truth, no? 😉
Oh! and this reminds me to send the flying penguins link to my brudder-in-law!
LOL 😛
Courtesan: 1
Readers: 0
Susan, I was genuinely surprised that nobody saw it coming; I really did think I had made the politician silly enough!
Now that the main gag is over, can anyone find the hint in the first paragraph? There’s also a hint to the hint. 😉
Reading this on my trawl through your archives, I didn’t notice the date . . . but being a man with an excellent education (I humbly give the credit to the quality of my teacher, as an autodidact), the invocation of Swift in both title and opening quote had me forewarned.
I continue to be baffled as to why anyone would want their marriage defined by a third party. As things stand right now, when you marry the state you live in decides what being married means, whether it can be terminated, etc. If you change states, the definition changes. Even if you stay in the same state, a new legislature can change the definition of your marriage. This arrangement turns the concept of “the sanctity of marriage” on its head, since those who have entered into a marriage have no say over its conditions. Essentially you’ve promised to continually hit a moving target, as the state changes its definition of marriage over time. You’re not even allowed the simple courtesy of having the definition of your marriage frozen at the time of the marriage. The legislature could, if it so chose, wake up tomorrow and nullify all marriages and Hey! Presto! You’re not married and you can’t to a damn thing about it.
Marriage should be a private contract drawn up by the parties in question. The number and genders of the people who agree to abide by the contract is not the business of anyone outside of the contract. Want a “’til death do us part” contract? Write it that way. Want an automatic termination clause with option for renewal? Write it that way! The contract can be as detailed as desired, including things like termination conditions, who gets custody of the kids (and/or pets), post-termination support, etc. Get as detailed as desired, and put in all the clauses you want. Granted, people might be more reluctant to get married, but that isn’t necessarily a bad thing (e.g. finding out your prospective spouse will demand that all the housework will be done by you to their satisfaction might be good to know BEFORE the wedding).
The ONLY thing the state should do is enforce the contract!
I totally agree; that’s the way it is in several of Heinlein’s novels (explained most thoroughly in The Puppet Masters, I think) and the way I believe it should be. What’s more, there should be no “divorce court”; the contracts should be adjudicated in normal courts of contract law, by the LETTER OF THE CONTRACT rather than the opinions of judges and social workers.
Muqtaa is not SHARIA law,pls chk ur research b4 u publicise abt it.It is illegal in all Gulf Countries which follow the Shariah law.
UmmKhalood, the politician in the story is supposed to be ignorant; you may want to read this article about a European and North American custom involving April 1st. 😉
Both of these politicians are too stupid to realize that by making a felony out of adultery and premaritial sex they’d be creating a system nearly identical to the Sharia Law our soldiers are dying fighting against.
But actually, I think it would be funny in a way for the gov’t to screw the adultery crowd over, since so many of them turn around and claim gay marriage will “destroy” the institution they themselves have made a joke out of.
As for jailing people for premaritial sex, well, people have been talking about how smaller classrooms are good for kids, and this would be one way to empty entire high schools…
Days, you didn’t click on the last link either, did you? Notice the date I posted this column… 😉
Maggie, you fell afoul of Poe’s Law. Only Swift, the date, and the link lets us know. It’s hard to make a politician so silly that people know he isn’t real.
Well, there is one more thing; get out your Scrabble tiles and play with the politician’s name a bit, and notice what town he’s from.
Maybe it’s just too early in the morning for me, but I see several politicians.
Gov. Sean Parnell
Don Haase
Paskvan
Fairlay D. Sloop
I’m going to say it’s Sloop you meant, from Telegraph.
Oh wait, it is Sloop. FAIRLAY D SLOOP = APRIL FOOLS DAY
Bingo! 🙂