In my former life as a library assistant* I was continually asked to find reference materials on the requirements for marriage and the conditions needed for an annulment. One of the ways I discovered that you can sneak out of a marriage was to have one of the parties labeled "insane."
In addition one of Arizona's statutes explicitly states "a first cousins may marry if both are sixty-five years of age or older or if one or both first cousins are under sixty-five years of age, upon approval of any superior court judge in the state if proof has been presented to the judge that one of the cousins is unable to reproduce." Nice to know sterilization is still offered for those "deviants" who would like to marry, but do not want to place an undue burden on the state welfare system.
Not knowing the history of proscribable marriages I thought it was kinda goofy, but harmless. As I am now in the middle of reading Edwin Black's War Against the Weak a book which details the crimes of Eugenics here in America, my opinion has been considerably altered.
The book describes in detail "how by identifying so-called "defectives" (many so called feeble-minded, insane, and epileptics) were subjected "to a legislated segregation and sterilization program" which deprived thousands of the natural rights to be married and to procreate.
According to the book, the history of prohibited marriages in America has more to do with racial discrimination and upperclass dominance, than the thinly disguised excuses of hygiene. The key decision was Buck vs. Bell (for all my law friends) which opened the floodgates that eventually allowed the government to systematically sterilize and castrate some 30,000 people. A total of at least 60,000 between the years of 1890 and 1940.
It was easy and not unusual to label "promiscuous women" as feebleminded. Not that it took much (shockingly little) to label women as promiscuous or prostitutes back then. I must note that this website has in many ways insulted the lower class, promiscuous women, defectives and deviants, so my outrage may come as a surprise to any remaining long time readers.
But I suggest, there is a bit of difference between my sarcasms and intentional use of satire in contradistinction to members of the legislature who actively cut off people's balls. I prefer the old fashioned method of ridicule. Sticks and stones do the breaking of bones.
*I would like it noted that I am not a lawyer and any use or misuse of the materials (which are given for entertainment purposes only) that you view on this site is at your own risk. I cannot expect or even hope to have all the lawyers who read this dribble rescue me with correct legal advice. Anyways I am not in the business of engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. That would be wrong, plus the state no longer pays me to give out poor legal advice.
If you are not married and have not established paternity who am I to tell you to grab the Packet for Paternity plus custody?
No comments:
Post a Comment