Here is a minor one, but it shows the anti-marriage mindset of our legislators.
The NY Post reports:
Also Tuesday, the state Senate moved to treat the rape of a spouse the same as the rape of a non-spouse. The bill removes an exemption to the rape law if the victim is married to the perpetrator.It is a very serious crime when a stranger abducts and forcibly rapes a women. It is bizarre to say that this is exactly the same, with exactly the same punishments, as a husband making love to his wife.
California is one of 11 states that distinguish between spousal rape and other forms of sexual assault. The bill’s supporters said the distinction lingers from a time when women were expected to obey their husbands.
Those convicted of spousal rape currently can be eligible for probation instead of prison or jail, although there is no difference in the maximum penalties. Those convicted of spousal rape also must register as sex offenders only if the act involved the use of force or violence and the spouse was sentenced to state prison.
The bill passed, 36-0. It returns to the Assembly for a final vote before lawmakers adjourn for the year on Friday.
The vote was 36-0. Not one was willing to stand up and say that stranger rape is worse. This shows how anti-marriage our leaders have become.
Notice that the maximum penalties for rape and marital rape had already been equalized. The only remaining differences were minor and obscure. And no one defended those differences.
This is about like someone saying that non-gun crimes should be prosecuted the same as gun crimes, and then sifting thru all the laws to make sure that gun and non-gun perps get treated equally in all respects. He might claim that giving greater punishment to the gun crime is discriminatory.
Sure, it is discriminatory. We want to discriminate between dangerous criminals and non-dangerous ones. We want to distinguish between consensual and non-consensual relationships. To refuse to do so is extreme left-wing nuttiness.
The previous law had nothing to do with women being expected to obey their husbands. It had to do with the state not interfering in marriages, and the state accepting that the marriage was consensual. The state also had no-fault divorce, so anyone can get out at any time.
Update: A comment below missed the point.
For millennia, a major purpose of marriage has been to legitimize a sexual relationship. The only purpose to this change in the law is completely erase this, and to explicitly declare that sexual intercourse outside marriage is just as legitimate as inside marriage.
What is the purpose of this, except to nullify marriage as it has been understood for millennia? If I am wrong here, then tell me the purpose to this change in the law.