| |
|
|
Marriage licenses still linked with chauvinism
By Brian C. Jones
|
|
|
|
|
When you get hitched in Rhode Island, you can hear a little echo of the past. It’s a faint reminder that not so long ago, men and women were treated differently, even for such a simple thing as getting a marriage license. But when somebody recently suggested that the legal echo be eliminated, there was protest — showing it’s hard to eliminate even whispers of sexism. The problem begins with the way Rhode Island issues marriage licenses. The law says: "Persons intending to be joined together in marriage in this state must first obtain a license from the clerk of the town or city in which the female party [emphasis added] to the proposed marriage resides." The system isn’t so rigid to call off the wedding if the bride is from out-of-state. The couple simply goes to the city or town where the man lives. If both are non-residents (which isn’t illegal in Rhode Island, but surely frowned upon), they can get the license from the community where the wedding will be performed. But the process starts with girls-first. That rankles Steve Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union. "It’s not the end of the world," Brown says. "It’s just a vestige of an archaic law that sees the woman as the main party when it comes to marriage." So, when the Rhode Island Department of Health proposed legislation to create a statewide computerized marriage license system, Brown suggested eliminating the bride-first reference. The department obliged. One section of its computerization bill indicated that licenses could now be obtained from the community "in which either party to the marriage resides." Religious conservatives smelled a rat. Joanne McOsker, of Catholics for Life, told a state Senate committee that this change would "undermine marriage and the rights of family." Changing "female party" to "either party" could open the door to same-sex marriages. A Knights of Columbus spokesman agreed. Not to worry, committee officials told them. They already had decided to return to the original language. The reason? Town and city clerks didn’t want the brides-first system changed until the electronic license operation is running, because it would be too difficult to track records. The Senate passed the revised bill May 1. But the revision is flawed. Inadvertently, the new language says that until the electronic system starts, marriage licenses will be available from any city or town clerk, not just from the bride’s or groom’s hometown. Oops! That statewide approach was supposed to happen only after the statewide electronic system was activated, since a central computer would allow licenses to be easily issued from any clerk’s office, (a development that also would seem to solve the ACLU’s worries). There are plans to amend the bill again, keeping the brides-first system, pending computerization. Meanwhile, those wedded to the special status of the "female party" needn’t worry. Even if the health department finally gets General Assembly permission to computerize marriage licenses, and thus eliminate gender-based applications, there’s currently no money to do so. Change takes time.
|
