History of the marriage license

[Debra K]

What is so traditional about "traditional marriage" that some of you allegedly embrace? If you study the history of marriage, then you would know that it was an institution that subjugated women, but it has evolved. Educate yourself about coverture. Read this old case: Bradwell v. Illinois. Read Justice Bradley's famous concurring opinion and determine for yourself if the institution of marriage has not evolved and changed dramatically over the last century:

The claim of the plaintiff, who is a married woman, to be admitted to practice as an attorney and counselor at law is based upon the supposed right of every person, man or woman, to engage in any lawful employment for a livelihood. The Supreme Court of Illinois denied the application on the ground that, by the common law, which is the basis of the laws of Illinois, only men were admitted to the bar, and the legislature had not made any change in this respect, but had simply provided that no person should be admitted to practice as attorney or counselor without having previously obtained a license for that purpose from two justices of the Supreme Court, and that no person should receive a license without first obtaining a certificate from the court of some county of his good moral character. In other respects, it was left to the discretion of the court to establish the rules by which admission to the profession should be determined. The court, however, regarded itself as bound by at least two limitations. One was that it should establish such terms of admission as would promote the proper administration of justice, and the other that it should not admit any persons, or class of persons, not intended by the legislature to be admitted, even though not expressly excluded by statute. In view of this latter limitation the court felt compelled to deny the application of females to be admitted as members of the bar. Being contrary to the rules of the common law and the usages of Westminster Hall from time immemorial, it could not be supposed that the legislature had intended to adopt any different rule.

The claim that under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which declares that no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, the statute law of Illinois, or the common law prevailing in that state, can no longer be set up as a barrier against the right of females to pursue any lawful employment for a livelihood (the practice of law included), assumes that it is one of the privileges and immunities of women as citizens to engage in any and every profession, occupation, or employment in civil life.

Page 83 U. S. 141


It certainly cannot be affirmed, as an historical fact, that this has ever been established as one of the fundamental privileges and immunities of the sex. On the contrary, the civil law, as well as nature herself, has always recognized a wide difference in the respective spheres and destinies of man and woman. Man is, or should be, woman's protector and defender. The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life. The Constitution of the family organization, which is founded in the divine ordinance as well as in the nature of things, indicates the domestic sphere as that which properly belongs to the domain and functions of womanhood. The harmony, not to say identity, of interest and views which belong, or should belong, to the family institution is repugnant to the idea of a woman adopting a distinct and independent career from that of her husband. So firmly fixed was this sentiment in the founders of the common law that it became a maxim of that system of jurisprudence that a woman had no legal existence separate from her husband, who was regarded as her head and representative in the social state, and, notwithstanding some recent modifications of this civil status, many of the special rules of law flowing from and dependent upon this cardinal principle still exist in full force in most states. One of these is that a married woman is incapable, without her husband's consent, of making contracts which shall be binding on her or him. This very incapacity was one circumstance which the Supreme Court of Illinois deemed important in rendering a married woman incompetent fully to perform the duties and trusts that belong to the office of an attorney and counselor.

It is true that many women are unmarried and not affected by any of the duties, complications, and incapacities arising out of the married state, but these are exceptions to the general rule. The paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfill the noble and benign offices of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator. And the rules of civil society

Page 83 U. S. 142

must be adapted to the general constitution of things, and cannot be based upon exceptional cases.

The humane movements of modern society, which have for their object the multiplication of avenues for woman's advancement, and of occupations adapted to her condition and sex, have my heartiest concurrence. But I am not prepared to say that it is one of her fundamental rights and privileges to be admitted into every office and position, including those which require highly special qualifications and demanding special responsibilities. In the nature of things, it is not every citizen of every age, sex, and condition that is qualified for every calling and position. It is the prerogative of the legislator to prescribe regulations founded on nature, reason, and experience for the due admission of qualified persons to professions and callings demanding special skill and confidence. This fairly belongs to the police power of the state, and, in my opinion, in view of the peculiar characteristics, destiny, and mission of woman, it is within the province of the legislature to ordain what offices, positions, and callings shall be filled and discharged by men, and shall receive the benefit of those energies and responsibilities, and that decision and firmness which are presumed to predominate in the sterner sex.

For these reasons, I think that the laws of Illinois now complained of are not obnoxious to the charge of abridging any of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.​

 

[Syriusly]

A Brief History of Marriage Licenses in the US

So there you have it. At the turn of the 20th century racist Progs created the marriage license in an effort to prevent blacks from marrying whites. Now they are using to prevent Polygamists from marrying. In fact, why should those who marry have any more rights than those who don't wish to marry? It makes no sense.

So why do conservatives still sanction state approved marriage?

Take back the country, do away with state sanctioned marriage.

The belief at the time, now, and through history, has been that a society is stronger if men and women commit to each other via marriage. That is the reason for giving tax benefits to married couples----to encourage marriage and stable families.

Its not the least bit complicated.

Nor particularly true.

 

[Syriusly]

If the creation of the marriage license was rooted in racism, why then is it not being banned like the Confederate flag?

Marriage is a legal contract, not a symbol like a flag.

The contract of marriage turned women into property and deprived them of the right to own property.

Why aren't you making that your argument to ban marriage?

Or are you only fixated on racism?

married women can't own property?

ONLY UNDER SHARIA LAW IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES!!!

Really?
Until recently it was fairly common that married women couldn't own property in many parts of the world.

4) Marriage Women’s Property Act, New York State - 1848

The British "merger of identities" doctrine law which retained women’s property under the control of their husbands, governed family affairs in the early years of the United States. Mississippi was the first English colony to challenge this, passing a Married Women's Property Act in 1839 (3/5 of which dealt with transfer of real property in slaves from father to daughter so plantations would not be divided amongst son-in-laws). New York in 1848 was one of the first states to grant women any rights in personal and real property. By 1900 every state had given married women substantial control over their property.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage is a legal contract, not a symbol like a flag.

The contract of marriage turned women into property and deprived them of the right to own property.

Why aren't you making that your argument to ban marriage?

Or are you only fixated on racism?

married women can't own property?

ONLY UNDER SHARIA LAW IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES!!!

my point exactly. the idiot derideo said that marriage deprived women of the right to own property. I wonder is Hillary knows that.

It did. The law changed around the time women were allowed to vote. Study a little history, dumbass.

Female ownership of property was not denied by marriage licenses.

Female ownership of property was denied by marriage.

Until the laws were changed.

Women were essentially the property of their husbands until coverture was eliminated.

 

[Redfish]

Would your "anyone can marry" idea apply to multiple persons, siblings, parent/child, cousins, etc?

Those kinds of "marriages" would be for tax purposes only. Would you condone them?

Why should taxes have anything to do with marriage?

tax breaks are given to married couples in order to encourage people to marry and provide a stable family to raise children. tax breaks are given to people who own houses in order to encourage people to own their homes. If you don't think those are worthy goals for a society, then you have a right to that opinion.

Let's not forget that those breaks, as they apply to the raising of children are there because

Raising children = raising future taxpayers, soldiers, doctors, law enforcement officers, teachers and on and on. And to do it in a way that is the least chaotic.

Remember, males are not monogamous by nature.

So your comment in polegamy is correct.

I might also point out another problem. The USSC did not just legalize gay marriage, it made these partnerships open to all same sex partnerships.

Imagine you have a pension and a widower. Your buddy who is also single has no pension. You find out you will die in a few years. Why not apply for a $50 marriage license and pass on both your pension and your social security benefits on to your buddy (now your spouse)?

Votto beleives the government should get out of Marriage. I think they will, not because they shouldn't have been in it in the first place, but because of the impossibility of it being financially viable once people understand how easy it is to make bank on it.

there are several things in play here

1. the left wants to eliminate religious marriage
2. the left wants to use govt to declare homosexuality as normal
3. the SC ruling will bring polygamy, and all forms of multiple marriage, as well as sibling marriage.
4. once the govt realizes that this ruling will reduce tax revenue, they will find ways to reverse it.
5. civil unions for two SS gays would have solved the problem, but the gay agenda was/is not about solving the problem, it is about forcing societal acceptance of homos as normal

Life in America would be a lot easier for everyone if the allegedly "big tent" Republican party did not capitalize on the ignorance and low-information attributes of the mindless bible-bangers, et al. At the same time these uneducated fruit loops are standing in the cheese line to get their share of government largess, they whine because someone they don't like might be standing in that same line. At the same time these uneducated fruit loops are buying disposable diapers for their babies with welfare money, they complain because some other person they disfavor might be doing the same thing. Then they place their ignorance on display as if it were a badge of honor. They serve the masters of the "big tent" as useful idiots.

Here is what is truly in play:

1. The uneducated low-information fools falsely believe in their own alleged superiority and want to deprive others of liberty and equal protection secured by the Supreme Law of the Land.

2. The uneducated low-information fools want to demonize homosexuality and impose their morals on others through the operation of discriminatory laws (while they simultaneously fail to live up to their own morals). The fact that a same-sex couple may obtain a state-issued marriage license and enter a civil contract called marriage does not impugn the "sanctity" of any one of their serial marriages.

3. The uneducated low-information fools are incapable of reason and fail to employ logic when composing their arguments. They should study logical fallacies and familiarize themselves with the "slippery slope".

4. Marriage is not a tax loophole. If the government wants to increase tax revenue, then the government should close the tax loopholes that allow the wealthiest among us to escape paying their fair share.

5. The discredited "separate but equal" doctrine is oppressive and perpetuates inequality and societal discord. Treating one segment of the population as second-class citizens does not solve any problems but rather creates problems. Nevertheless, anyone in society can think or believe whatever they want even if their thoughts or beliefs are ignorant.

6. Useful idiots are so far out there into "right wing wacko land" that they are unaware that politicians are merely playing lip-service to their prejudices in order to get their votes and nothing more.

7. Useful idiots should educate themselves and their children and move into the center where sanity prevails and the rule of law is respected.

^^^^right out of the socialist playbook.

 

[Redfish]

married women can't own property?

ONLY UNDER SHARIA LAW IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES!!!

my point exactly. the idiot derideo said that marriage deprived women of the right to own property. I wonder is Hillary knows that.

It did. The law changed around the time women were allowed to vote. Study a little history, dumbass.

Female ownership of property was not denied by marriage licenses.

Female ownership of property was denied by marriage.

Until the laws were changed.

Women were essentially the property of their husbands until coverture was eliminated.

That is simply not true. Unless you were raised in a muslim country.

 

[Redfish]

A Brief History of Marriage Licenses in the US

So there you have it. At the turn of the 20th century racist Progs created the marriage license in an effort to prevent blacks from marrying whites. Now they are using to prevent Polygamists from marrying. In fact, why should those who marry have any more rights than those who don't wish to marry? It makes no sense.

So why do conservatives still sanction state approved marriage?

Take back the country, do away with state sanctioned marriage.

The belief at the time, now, and through history, has been that a society is stronger if men and women commit to each other via marriage. That is the reason for giving tax benefits to married couples----to encourage marriage and stable families.

Its not the least bit complicated.

Nor particularly true.

of course its true. If not, why do all societies encourage marriage?

 

[Seawytch]

ONLY UNDER SHARIA LAW IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES!!!

my point exactly. the idiot derideo said that marriage deprived women of the right to own property. I wonder is Hillary knows that.

It did. The law changed around the time women were allowed to vote. Study a little history, dumbass.

Female ownership of property was not denied by marriage licenses.

Female ownership of property was denied by marriage.

Until the laws were changed.

Women were essentially the property of their husbands until coverture was eliminated.

That is simply not true. Unless you were raised in a muslim country.

Wrong Fishy. It was true in THIS country AFTER its founding.

Married Women s Property Acts in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Syriusly]

ONLY UNDER SHARIA LAW IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES!!!

my point exactly. the idiot derideo said that marriage deprived women of the right to own property. I wonder is Hillary knows that.

It did. The law changed around the time women were allowed to vote. Study a little history, dumbass.

Female ownership of property was not denied by marriage licenses.

Female ownership of property was denied by marriage.

Until the laws were changed.

Women were essentially the property of their husbands until coverture was eliminated.

That is simply not true. Unless you were raised in a muslim country.

Don't you ever get embarrassed about being slapped down by me when I show how you are once again just flat out WRONG?

As I said: Women were essentially the property of their husbands until coverture was eliminated

Coverture Women Losing Their Legal Existence With Marriage
About - National Women s History Museum - NWHM

Coverture held that no female person had a legal identity. At birth, a female baby was covered by her father’s identity, and then, when she married, by her husband’s. The husband and wife became one–and that one was the husband. As a symbol of this subsuming of identity, women took the last names of their husbands. They were “feme coverts,” covered women. Because they did not legally exist, married women could not make contracts or be sued, so they could not own or work in businesses. Married women owned nothing, not even the clothes on their backs. They had no rights to their children, so that if a wife divorced or left a husband, she would not see her children again.

Married women had no rights to their bodies. That meant that not only would a husband have a claim to any wages generated by his wife’s labor or to the fruits of her body (her children), but he also had an absolute right to sexual access. Within marriage, a wife’s consent was implied, so under the law, all sex-related activity, including rape, was legitimate. His total mastery of this fellow human being stopped short, but just short, of death. Of course, a man wasn’t allowed to beat his wife to death, but he could beat her.

 

[Redfish]

my point exactly. the idiot derideo said that marriage deprived women of the right to own property. I wonder is Hillary knows that.

It did. The law changed around the time women were allowed to vote. Study a little history, dumbass.

Female ownership of property was not denied by marriage licenses.

Female ownership of property was denied by marriage.

Until the laws were changed.

Women were essentially the property of their husbands until coverture was eliminated.

That is simply not true. Unless you were raised in a muslim country.

Don't you ever get embarrassed about being slapped down by me when I show how you are once again just flat out WRONG?

As I said: Women were essentially the property of their husbands until coverture was eliminated

Coverture Women Losing Their Legal Existence With Marriage
About - National Women s History Museum - NWHM

Coverture held that no female person had a legal identity. At birth, a female baby was covered by her father’s identity, and then, when she married, by her husband’s. The husband and wife became one–and that one was the husband. As a symbol of this subsuming of identity, women took the last names of their husbands. They were “feme coverts,” covered women. Because they did not legally exist, married women could not make contracts or be sued, so they could not own or work in businesses. Married women owned nothing, not even the clothes on their backs. They had no rights to their children, so that if a wife divorced or left a husband, she would not see her children again.

Married women had no rights to their bodies. That meant that not only would a husband have a claim to any wages generated by his wife’s labor or to the fruits of her body (her children), but he also had an absolute right to sexual access. Within marriage, a wife’s consent was implied, so under the law, all sex-related activity, including rape, was legitimate. His total mastery of this fellow human being stopped short, but just short, of death. Of course, a man wasn’t allowed to beat his wife to death, but he could beat her.

Your cite is about British law in 1765. We are talking about the USA in the 21st century.

Do you have anything on Roman marriage law in 25BC?

 

[Syriusly]

A Brief History of Marriage Licenses in the US

So there you have it. At the turn of the 20th century racist Progs created the marriage license in an effort to prevent blacks from marrying whites. Now they are using to prevent Polygamists from marrying. In fact, why should those who marry have any more rights than those who don't wish to marry? It makes no sense.

So why do conservatives still sanction state approved marriage?

Take back the country, do away with state sanctioned marriage.

The belief at the time, now, and through history, has been that a society is stronger if men and women commit to each other via marriage. That is the reason for giving tax benefits to married couples----to encourage marriage and stable families.

Its not the least bit complicated.

Nor particularly true.

of course its true. If not, why do all societies encourage marriage?

For most of history, marriage was essentially for rulers- and those who held property. Marriage was among other things a device used to create relationships between families- and rulers. Marriage was also a way to designate which children were legally recognized as children of the father- and which children were not recognized as the children of the father.

The reason to give tax benefits to married couples now is to create a life long partnership that benefits society.

Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions

 

[Syriusly]

It did. The law changed around the time women were allowed to vote. Study a little history, dumbass.

Female ownership of property was not denied by marriage licenses.

Female ownership of property was denied by marriage.

Until the laws were changed.

Women were essentially the property of their husbands until coverture was eliminated.

That is simply not true. Unless you were raised in a muslim country.

Don't you ever get embarrassed about being slapped down by me when I show how you are once again just flat out WRONG?

As I said: Women were essentially the property of their husbands until coverture was eliminated

Coverture Women Losing Their Legal Existence With Marriage
About - National Women s History Museum - NWHM

Coverture held that no female person had a legal identity. At birth, a female baby was covered by her father’s identity, and then, when she married, by her husband’s. The husband and wife became one–and that one was the husband. As a symbol of this subsuming of identity, women took the last names of their husbands. They were “feme coverts,” covered women. Because they did not legally exist, married women could not make contracts or be sued, so they could not own or work in businesses. Married women owned nothing, not even the clothes on their backs. They had no rights to their children, so that if a wife divorced or left a husband, she would not see her children again.

Married women had no rights to their bodies. That meant that not only would a husband have a claim to any wages generated by his wife’s labor or to the fruits of her body (her children), but he also had an absolute right to sexual access. Within marriage, a wife’s consent was implied, so under the law, all sex-related activity, including rape, was legitimate. His total mastery of this fellow human being stopped short, but just short, of death. Of course, a man wasn’t allowed to beat his wife to death, but he could beat her.

Your cite is about British law in 1765. We are talking about the USA in the 21st century.

Do you have anything on Roman marriage law in 25BC?

You were the one who falsely claimed that this happened only in Muslim countries.

As I pointed out from beginning- coverture laws were in effect in the United States until they were gradually eliminated- and as my citation points out.

Coverture was what Abigail Adams was talking about in her famous “Remember the Ladies” letter to John, written in the spring of 1776 as he and the Continental Congress were contemplating what an independent America would look like. Contrary to popular assumptions, she was not asking John for the vote or for what we would understand to be

So what happened to coverture? The short answer is that it has been eroded bit by bit. But it has never been fully abolished. The ghost of coverture has always haunted women’s lives and continues to do so. Coverture is why women weren’t regularly allowed on juries until the 1960s, and marital rape wasn’t a crime until the 1980s. Today’s women encounter coverture during real estate transactions, as I did, in tax matters, and in a myriad of other situations around employment and housing. Encounters with coverture can be serious, but often they are just puzzling annoyances, one more hoop to jump. Still, the remnants of coverture are holding us back in unsuspected ways.

 

[Redfish]

A Brief History of Marriage Licenses in the US

So there you have it. At the turn of the 20th century racist Progs created the marriage license in an effort to prevent blacks from marrying whites. Now they are using to prevent Polygamists from marrying. In fact, why should those who marry have any more rights than those who don't wish to marry? It makes no sense.

So why do conservatives still sanction state approved marriage?

Take back the country, do away with state sanctioned marriage.

The belief at the time, now, and through history, has been that a society is stronger if men and women commit to each other via marriage. That is the reason for giving tax benefits to married couples----to encourage marriage and stable families.

Its not the least bit complicated.

Nor particularly true.

of course its true. If not, why do all societies encourage marriage?

For most of history, marriage was essentially for rulers- and those who held property. Marriage was among other things a device used to create relationships between families- and rulers. Marriage was also a way to designate which children were legally recognized as children of the father- and which children were not recognized as the children of the father.

The reason to give tax benefits to married couples now is to create a life long partnership that benefits society.

Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions

you disagree with me and then repeat exactly what I said. Too much cheap vodka this afternoon? Its not good to mix it with the paxil.

 

[Syriusly]

It did. The law changed around the time women were allowed to vote. Study a little history, dumbass.

Female ownership of property was not denied by marriage licenses.

Female ownership of property was denied by marriage.

Until the laws were changed.

Women were essentially the property of their husbands until coverture was eliminated.

That is simply not true. Unless you were raised in a muslim country.

Don't you ever get embarrassed about being slapped down by me when I show how you are once again just flat out WRONG?

As I said: Women were essentially the property of their husbands until coverture was eliminated

Coverture Women Losing Their Legal Existence With Marriage
About - National Women s History Museum - NWHM

Coverture held that no female person had a legal identity. At birth, a female baby was covered by her father’s identity, and then, when she married, by her husband’s. The husband and wife became one–and that one was the husband. As a symbol of this subsuming of identity, women took the last names of their husbands. They were “feme coverts,” covered women. Because they did not legally exist, married women could not make contracts or be sued, so they could not own or work in businesses. Married women owned nothing, not even the clothes on their backs. They had no rights to their children, so that if a wife divorced or left a husband, she would not see her children again.

Married women had no rights to their bodies. That meant that not only would a husband have a claim to any wages generated by his wife’s labor or to the fruits of her body (her children), but he also had an absolute right to sexual access. Within marriage, a wife’s consent was implied, so under the law, all sex-related activity, including rape, was legitimate. His total mastery of this fellow human being stopped short, but just short, of death. Of course, a man wasn’t allowed to beat his wife to death, but he could beat her.

Your cite is about British law in 1765. We are talking about the USA in the 21st century.

Do you have anything on Roman marriage law in 25BC?

And you ignored this post of mine.....you aren't even bothering to attempt to be right today are you?

Really?
Until recently it was fairly common that married women couldn't own property in many parts of the world.

4) Marriage Women’s Property Act, New York State - 1848

The British "merger of identities" doctrine law which retained women’s property under the control of their husbands, governed family affairs in the early years of the United States. Mississippi was the first English colony to challenge this, passing a Married Women's Property Act in 1839 (3/5 of which dealt with transfer of real property in slaves from father to daughter so plantations would not be divided amongst son-in-laws). New York in 1848 was one of the first states to grant women any rights in personal and real property. By 1900 every state had given married women substantial control over their property.

 

[Syriusly]

A Brief History of Marriage Licenses in the US

So there you have it. At the turn of the 20th century racist Progs created the marriage license in an effort to prevent blacks from marrying whites. Now they are using to prevent Polygamists from marrying. In fact, why should those who marry have any more rights than those who don't wish to marry? It makes no sense.

So why do conservatives still sanction state approved marriage?

Take back the country, do away with state sanctioned marriage.

The belief at the time, now, and through history, has been that a society is stronger if men and women commit to each other via marriage. That is the reason for giving tax benefits to married couples----to encourage marriage and stable families.

Its not the least bit complicated.

Nor particularly true.

of course its true. If not, why do all societies encourage marriage?

For most of history, marriage was essentially for rulers- and those who held property. Marriage was among other things a device used to create relationships between families- and rulers. Marriage was also a way to designate which children were legally recognized as children of the father- and which children were not recognized as the children of the father.

The reason to give tax benefits to married couples now is to create a life long partnership that benefits society.

Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions

you disagree with me and then repeat exactly what I said. Too much cheap vodka this afternoon? Its not good to mix it with the paxil.

If you agree with me that:

The reason to give tax benefits to married couples now is to create a life long partnership that benefits society.

Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions

Then we have no real disagreement.

 

[Redfish]

Female ownership of property was not denied by marriage licenses.

Female ownership of property was denied by marriage.

Until the laws were changed.

Women were essentially the property of their husbands until coverture was eliminated.

That is simply not true. Unless you were raised in a muslim country.

Don't you ever get embarrassed about being slapped down by me when I show how you are once again just flat out WRONG?

As I said: Women were essentially the property of their husbands until coverture was eliminated

Coverture Women Losing Their Legal Existence With Marriage
About - National Women s History Museum - NWHM

Coverture held that no female person had a legal identity. At birth, a female baby was covered by her father’s identity, and then, when she married, by her husband’s. The husband and wife became one–and that one was the husband. As a symbol of this subsuming of identity, women took the last names of their husbands. They were “feme coverts,” covered women. Because they did not legally exist, married women could not make contracts or be sued, so they could not own or work in businesses. Married women owned nothing, not even the clothes on their backs. They had no rights to their children, so that if a wife divorced or left a husband, she would not see her children again.

Married women had no rights to their bodies. That meant that not only would a husband have a claim to any wages generated by his wife’s labor or to the fruits of her body (her children), but he also had an absolute right to sexual access. Within marriage, a wife’s consent was implied, so under the law, all sex-related activity, including rape, was legitimate. His total mastery of this fellow human being stopped short, but just short, of death. Of course, a man wasn’t allowed to beat his wife to death, but he could beat her.

Your cite is about British law in 1765. We are talking about the USA in the 21st century.

Do you have anything on Roman marriage law in 25BC?

You were the one who falsely claimed that this happened only in Muslim countries.

As I pointed out from beginning- coverture laws were in effect in the United States until they were gradually eliminated- and as my citation points out.

Coverture was what Abigail Adams was talking about in her famous “Remember the Ladies” letter to John, written in the spring of 1776 as he and the Continental Congress were contemplating what an independent America would look like. Contrary to popular assumptions, she was not asking John for the vote or for what we would understand to be

So what happened to coverture? The short answer is that it has been eroded bit by bit. But it has never been fully abolished. The ghost of coverture has always haunted women’s lives and continues to do so. Coverture is why women weren’t regularly allowed on juries until the 1960s, and marital rape wasn’t a crime until the 1980s. Today’s women encounter coverture during real estate transactions, as I did, in tax matters, and in a myriad of other situations around employment and housing. Encounters with coverture can be serious, but often they are just puzzling annoyances, one more hoop to jump. Still, the remnants of coverture are holding us back in unsuspected ways.

OK, you win, in 1765 and 45 BC women could not own property in some places. BFD

 

[Redfish]

The belief at the time, now, and through history, has been that a society is stronger if men and women commit to each other via marriage. That is the reason for giving tax benefits to married couples----to encourage marriage and stable families.

Its not the least bit complicated.

Nor particularly true.

of course its true. If not, why do all societies encourage marriage?

For most of history, marriage was essentially for rulers- and those who held property. Marriage was among other things a device used to create relationships between families- and rulers. Marriage was also a way to designate which children were legally recognized as children of the father- and which children were not recognized as the children of the father.

The reason to give tax benefits to married couples now is to create a life long partnership that benefits society.

Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions

you disagree with me and then repeat exactly what I said. Too much cheap vodka this afternoon? Its not good to mix it with the paxil.

If you agree with me that:

The reason to give tax benefits to married couples now is to create a life long partnership that benefits society.

Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions

Then we have no real disagreement.

thats exactly what I said before you said I was wrong. Seriously, do not mix alcohol and mind altering drugs.

 

[Syriusly]

Nor particularly true.

of course its true. If not, why do all societies encourage marriage?

For most of history, marriage was essentially for rulers- and those who held property. Marriage was among other things a device used to create relationships between families- and rulers. Marriage was also a way to designate which children were legally recognized as children of the father- and which children were not recognized as the children of the father.

The reason to give tax benefits to married couples now is to create a life long partnership that benefits society.

Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions

you disagree with me and then repeat exactly what I said. Too much cheap vodka this afternoon? Its not good to mix it with the paxil.

If you agree with me that:

The reason to give tax benefits to married couples now is to create a life long partnership that benefits society.

Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions

Then we have no real disagreement.

thats exactly what I said before you said I was wrong. Seriously, do not mix alcohol and mind altering drugs.

Then we are in agreement on this issue, and you were merely wrong in your claim about women's rights.

 

[Redfish]

of course its true. If not, why do all societies encourage marriage?

For most of history, marriage was essentially for rulers- and those who held property. Marriage was among other things a device used to create relationships between families- and rulers. Marriage was also a way to designate which children were legally recognized as children of the father- and which children were not recognized as the children of the father.

The reason to give tax benefits to married couples now is to create a life long partnership that benefits society.

Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions

you disagree with me and then repeat exactly what I said. Too much cheap vodka this afternoon? Its not good to mix it with the paxil.

If you agree with me that:

The reason to give tax benefits to married couples now is to create a life long partnership that benefits society.

Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions

Then we have no real disagreement.

thats exactly what I said before you said I was wrong. Seriously, do not mix alcohol and mind altering drugs.

Then we are in agreement on this issue, and you were merely wrong in your claim about women's rights.

No, you were wrong. In the USA women have always been able to own property. Who gives a shit what the rules were in England in the 1400s ?

 

[Seawytch]

For most of history, marriage was essentially for rulers- and those who held property. Marriage was among other things a device used to create relationships between families- and rulers. Marriage was also a way to designate which children were legally recognized as children of the father- and which children were not recognized as the children of the father.

The reason to give tax benefits to married couples now is to create a life long partnership that benefits society.

Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions

you disagree with me and then repeat exactly what I said. Too much cheap vodka this afternoon? Its not good to mix it with the paxil.

If you agree with me that:

The reason to give tax benefits to married couples now is to create a life long partnership that benefits society.

Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions

Then we have no real disagreement.

thats exactly what I said before you said I was wrong. Seriously, do not mix alcohol and mind altering drugs.

Then we are in agreement on this issue, and you were merely wrong in your claim about women's rights.

No, you were wrong. In the USA women have always been able to own property. Who gives a shit what the rules were in England in the 1400s ?

Not once they were married they did not.