According to the Expatriation Act of 1907, if an American woman married a foreign national, she lost her American citizenship.
The same was not true of American men.
Whoo hoo! Go Tradition!
Traditional Marriage: Fun Fact!8 comments to Traditional Marriage: Fun Fact! |
|
|
Copyright © 2012 wakingupnow.com - All Rights Reserved |
|
This would be an interesting thread to start. See how many different things that can be located of what “traditional” marriage is. Just sayin.. Thanks for all the great Vids. I have enjoyed them for a long time.
Do “traditional” marriages in other cultures count? If so, then 1) Middle Eastern marriages where if the husband says three times “I divorce you,” it’s a done deal, and 2) in Japan, if a husband were away from his wife for a certain length of time (a year? three years?), the marriage was considered over and done with.
But, but, but…..does that mean that Maggie Gallagher does not beleive in traditional American vaules?
All over again with these examples, women had little autonomy in a marriage. She’s subject to the whims of her husband. Whether she’s abandoned or kept around to abuse and be denied any status as an adult.
It’s a wonder that more women who are opposed to marriage equality can be THIS ignorant of their own history with this.
But not for some committed feminists (who some criticize), they’d have NO power or status or the ability to retain any property or independent finances.
As Judge Walker pointed out in his decision: marriage is a union of equals.
And with ss marriage, that statement would be ever more true.
The expansion of marriage to gay couples, exemplifies the expansion of egalitarian marriages.
Something that everyone benefits from.
According to the link, this:
Which is interesting. American men still not affected in any way, of course.
“American men still not affected in any way, of course.”
Again–this is a function of traditional marriage–at least as it was practiced in Europe.
If a non-titled woman married a titled man–say if a scullery maid married a Duke–she became a duchess when she married him, and the children of this union inherited titles from the paternal line.
BUT if the situation was reversed–say if a duchess married a coachman–not only didn’t the coachman become a duke, but the woman lost her title, and the children of the union were automatically commoners.
The essence of this form of “traditional marriage” is that any civil or social status derives from the man, and the woman is a mere accessory to that status.
In America, of course, we don’t have inherited, aristocratic titles, but this law having to do with citizenship shows that the concept of a woman gaining (or losing) status upon marriage was still alive and well in 1922.
Let’s also remember that for the overwhelming majority of western history, marriage was a contract and for the most part a property arrangement. The “best environment to raise children” was an ancillary purpose, if a purpose at all.
But then, fact never really mattered to the NOM set.
In 1978, I had a flawless—if fledgling—credit rating. When I got married, I was given my new husband’s credit rating: zero. Royally pissed me off.