Age of Consent and Parental Consent

The Agitator suggests an interesting question related to the nonsensical government over-reach going on in Eldorado Texas.

Why does it make legal sense for parents to be able to give consent for marriage below the age of consent?

In Texas the age of consent is 18 but 16 with parental consent.

Whether you agree with 18 as the age of consent or not, what the hell kind of law allows third party consent to sexual relations?

Marriage

As Contact points out, the culture war about gay marriage is really about whether or not marriage is a religious concept or a civil concept.

It has become very clear to me that there is a big problem that is manifesting itself in all different ways: marriage is increasingly a civil proposition in addition to a religious one. And guess what, this post is not even inspired by gay marriage.

As probably anyone who reads this knows, Jeff and I were married civilly, not religiously. In other words, our marriage is not sanctioned by any religious authority, only by the state of Florida (and fortunately for us, since we are straight, the other 49 states too).

When gay marriage first started becoming a hot topic, I immediately thought of Jeff and myself (though obviously we are not gay). What about our marriage? If the word marriage is only supposed to be used for religious unions, do Jeff and I have a civil union instead of a marriage? Are we not supposed to refer to ourselves as married but rather civily united? Is it OK because we are a man and a woman? And if it is OK because we are a man and a woman, how does this not amount to government discrimination against homosexuals?

Although, as she says, the whole thing's not really a gay issue, the question would probably never really be asked if it wasn't for the gay rights question.

A friend of mine owns some gay websites and asked me a while back to write something for them about gay marriage. Not becuase I really know anything about gay stuff specifically but becuase I write and do have some legal education (took a few courses) and am able to read simple court decisions. I never got around to doing anything but did start a marriage blog to use to collect some links and information

On Picking a husband

As I've mentioned in the past, I often read feminist blogs. I'm not sure how much of a supporter of feminism I am because I'm not even sure what feminism is any more. It used to be about legal and social rights of women. At least that's what I think it was about.

Today, if the blogs I read are any indication, it's more about getting attention with the use of extreme left wing politics and Marxist social theory than it is about women.

Feministing is one of the more outrageous (and entertaining) blogs that self-identify as feminist. Not only that the bloggers self-identify as professional feminists. That's who they make their living. By being feminists. Whatever it means to be a feminist these days, being a professional feminists is a whole different ballgame. That requires using all the tools available to get attention. Getting attention is the goal, not improving the legal and social rights of women.

Feministing is very good at their chosen profession. They know how to play to their audience. If by doing so they're just mumbling incoherent, internally inconsistent nonsense, well, they're professionals.

They seem to have mastered the achievement of politically correct, internally inconsistent nonsense with a recent post commenting on some comments made by an editor of Money Magazine.

Marlys Harris wrote a story for MSNBC on how to marry money. The story is somewhat serious, somewhat tongue in cheek. She at least warns us that

Before you start making repeated visits to your target's golf club or home, remember that stalking is a crime in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.

To most of us that kind of language is a clue that this article is mostly intended to
entertain, that informing is only a secondary consideration in the article. But, Jessica of Feministing is a professional feminist, on a serious mission, and doesn't have time to notice such little cues to the read

Harris doesn't even mention gender until paragraph 14, when she says

First, some bad news. Forbes magazine, which has made a cottage industry of compiling lists of wealthy folks, declared this year that there are a paltry 946 billionaires in the entire world. Worse, most of them are currently married (though that does not necessarily discourage the most determined gold diggers).

The picture gets even grimmer for men. A scant 38 women appear on the list of U.S. billionaires. Average age: 63.

So, most of the article has a focus of women marrying very rich men simply because that's actually the way things tend to work, there just aren't enough very rich single women to go around. But that's not good enough for Jessica. In her commentary she starts out with

Well this is just lovely. What's the best advice that Marlys Harris, Senior Editor of Money Magazine, has for women? "Snag" yourself a "Richie Rich."

I'm not sure where the quote marks around Richie Rich comes from, Harris never makes a reference to Richie Rich in her story that I can find. And the story doesn't say that trying to snag a rich guy is the best route to success for women, in fact it says it's a tough goal to achieve. The story gives advice on how to find a really rich spouse for those who have that as a goal. The story doesn't suggest that would make a good goal.

Maybe that's a distinction that's hard for some to grasp.

Jessica also gets the rest of her criticism wrong. Pretty much her entire post is based on either miss-representation. Is that what feminism is these days?