"To Have and to Hold: The Marital Rape Exemption and the Fourteenth Amendment."
Harvard Law Review 99.6 (1986): 1255. Web.
The Author of, To Have and To Hold: Marital Rape Exemption and the Fourteenth Amendment, first explains the history of why in the earlier days marital rape was not considered rape. There were certain traditions that are concluded in the article, where women, traditionally gave up their “identity” and replaced it with their husbands. Having taken their husbands identity, they became property of their husbands. I understand the reasons why women had no voice in society many years ago because society was not developed to have women part of it, but for my inquiry paper I can use this information as an advantage. I will…show more content… The laws included have been specifically listed to support the author’s point of view toward women’s rights. The article lists and argues the effects of the experiences of the victims, which is a plus because I will build up these experiences to argue in my inquiry paper that marital rape exists and brings only negative experiences. Furthermore, in a marriage both parties have to consent in having sexual intercourse not just one is allowed to decide for the other. With that said the author then includes equality between men and women. It talks about women’s right not being so equally balanced to men 's rights, which is why men are exempt to be prosecuted for raping their wives. The author brought out a big point on equality, men and women do indeed have different levels of equality. Men usually have a bigger range of power over women and the whole topic of marital rape is wrapped around equality. With that said without unbalanced equality between men and women marital rape would not be an issue. At the end of the article the author finally states its position clearly over marital rape and women. The author argues that marital rape…show more content… She talks about court cases, in the R. v. Clarke, the wife ordered a divorce from her husband, two weeks later she is raped by her husband. The rule was that it was considered rape because the wife ordered a divorce which meant the couple were not one any more but two individuals. There are a few more case rulings that later lead to the elimination of the Marital Rape Exemption law in the R. v. R case. The case is about when the wife leaves with her child to her parent’s home, two days later the husband calls to say he is going to divorce her. A few weeks later he, the husband, breaks in his wife’s parents house and forced/attempts to force his wife to have sex. The Judge, Judge Owens, states he does not make laws but he does rule what he believes the laws mean. This I believe is important because later in the passage the author points out that Judge Owens believed that in this case the wife did consent of having sexual intercourse with her husband but he did believe the husband could be charged of rape because there was violence involved. Judge Owens concluded that the numerous amount violence involved states the husband was found guilty but he did not talk about marital rape but mostly of the violence involved. Later the case was appealed and it ruled “unlawful”,