Mah homie Karl Rove says that George W. Bush will be working hard to pass a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Rove, fresh from a gentle Fox fellating on November 5 from Jim Angle, returned for more of the same on November 8. This time it was Chris Wallace's turn in the barrel on Fox News Sunday. During the Sunday interview, when asked about the amendment push, Rove said, "We cannot allow activist local elected officials to thumb their nose at 5,000 years of human history and determine that marriage is something else." This "5,000 years" number is a quite popular in conservative homophobia-philia, and most certainly refers to the Code of Hammurabi. These are Babylonian statutes dating to 1780 BCE, and they contain what are generally acknowledged as the oldest documented marriage laws. Hammurabi! It's fun to say, isn't it? Go ahead, you know you want to! Hammurabi! Hammurabi! Hammurabi does the job-ee!
Ahem. The Code begins with "When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi ..." etc. etc. etc. Quite a bit more impressive than "We the people ..." I must admit. But even so, the great thing about the Code's 282 laws is that almost everything ends with someone being put to death. Tends to cut down on appeals. There's also a lot of jumping into rivers to prove stuff other than buoyancy, and buoyancy itself was not necessarily a good thing.
But still, 5,000 years! That's got to count for something. I see no reason why we can't institute Marduk's will in its entirety. Divorce lawyers take note:
142. If a woman quarrel with her husband, and say: "You are not congenial to me," the reasons for her prejudice must be presented. If she is guiltless, and there is no fault on her part, but he leaves and neglects her, then no guilt attaches to this woman, she shall take her dowry and go back to her father's house.
143. If she is not innocent, but leaves her husband, and ruins her house, neglecting her husband, this woman shall be cast into the water.
Well, maybe the bottom of that ol' river will be more congenial to you, sweetie. But what about that common modern marriage problem of a wife wanting to give her husband someone else to have sex with, and then the wife's all, well, maybe I should just sell that sex-toy to someone else? Normally, sure, no problem right? But what if the sex-toy gets pregnant? A real stumper! Well, just ask Hammurabi:
146. If a man take a wife and she give this man a maid-servant as wife and she bear him children, and then this maid assume equality with the wife: because she has borne him children her master shall not sell her for money, but he may keep her as a slave, reckoning her among the maid-servants.
147. If she have not borne him children, then her mistress may sell her for money.
Nice! So, child-producing maid-servants can be promoted to "equality with the wife" ... which amounts to the same as slaves apparently. Why would any wife "give" her husband such a potential rival? Sell them ho's if you smart. For money.
There's quite a bit of mind-numbing detail about who can sell what and which son inherits who and what can be deducted from the dowry if the a man's wife sells his garden to a maid-servant's unmarried zzzzzzz snore. But then you start getting into a little corporal punishment:
192. If a son of a paramour or a prostitute say to his adoptive father or mother: "You are not my father, or my mother," his tongue shall be cut off.
I can only imagine what they cut off if you sob out, "I didn't ask to be born!" But that's just the start of a section on The Laws of Two Wrongs Making a Right:
193. If the son of a paramour or a prostitute desire his father's house, and desert his adoptive father and adoptive mother, and goes to his father's house, then shall his eye be put out.
194. If a man give his child to a nurse and the child die in her hands, but the nurse unbeknown to the father and mother nurse another child, then they shall convict her of having nursed another child without the knowledge of the father and mother and her breasts shall be cut off.
195. If a son strike his father, his hands shall be hewn off.
196. If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out.
197. If he break another man's bone, his bone shall be broken.
etc. etc. etc.
Hands did not fare well in this era. Physicians in particular seemed to do OK with the shekels, though of course you got more for curing rich people than slaves. Unfortunately, malpractice penalties were a bit more serious:
218. If a physician make a large incision with the operating knife, and kill him, or open a tumor with the operating knife, and cut out the eye, his hands shall be cut off.
"Barbers," who I guess did actual barbering but also were responsible for marking or branding people as slaves, had a lot at stake as well:
226. If a barber, without the knowledge of his master, cut the sign of a slave on a slave not to be sold, the hands of this barber shall be cut off.
And speaking of slaves -- after a lot of crap about various services worth varying amounts of "ka of corn" etc. -- the Code reveals a certain sensitivity to germinating principles of customer service:
278. If any one buy a male or female slave, and before a month has elapsed the benu-disease be developed, he shall return the slave to the seller, and receive the money which he had paid.
That's a relief. On a final melancholy note, the last law of the Code is:
282. If a slave say to his master: "You are not my master," if they convict him his master shall cut off his ear.
Why the slaves lose an ear, versus the disloyal adopted child losing the tongue in rule 192, I have no idea. I'm sure Hammurabi had some ideas about the relationships between the crimes and amputations, but in the end, I guess there's only so much stuff to chop off. But our modern options are not so limited. "If a man commit securities fraud in excess of 100,000,000 ka of corn, he shall have his anterior cruciate ligament severed." etc.
Genius really! And it's obvious that we also need to defend the institution of slavery. Sure, sure, I'm aware that an activist, elected Union government interfered with slavery 139 years ago, but c'mon. What's that compared to 5,000 years of glorious history? Just because we've cured benu-disease doesn't mean we have to throw out the slave-baby with the bathwater.