|
|
AQUARTER CENTURY ago, the poet and feminist theorist Adrienne Rich wrote that the institution of marriage allowed "the infantile needs of
adult men" to enjoy "free rein even
to the point of violence."
It was, of course, a radical claim, but then Rich was writing in a time when a U.S. senator (a California Democrat, no less) could ask: "But if you can't rape your wife, who can you rape?"
As disturbing as the senator's question was, even more troubling is what the law in this state--and 31 others--still says about marital rape.
The Virginia code's existing sub-
section on marital rape starts out sensibly enough. It says: "If any person has sexual intercourse with his or her spouse and such act is accomplished against the spouse's will by force, threat, or intimidation of or against the spouse or another, he or she shall be guilty of rape."
That's reasonably straightforward as far as legalese goes. But then, in the next sentence, comes a bizarre twist:
"However, no person shall be found guilty under this subsection unless, at the time of the alleged offense, (i) the spouses were living separate and apart, or (ii) the defendant caused bodily injury to the spouse by the use of force or violence."
So, then, it's like this under current state law:
A married person can commit an act of sexual violence that the code clearly defines as rape,
but whether he can be prosecuted for the act depends entirely on
incidental matters--i.e., the attacker's place of residence and the victim's ability to document
physical harm.
Reading the Virginia code's take on marital rape, you begin to feel that Rich's feminist critique hits the mark.
Virginia Attorney General Jerry Kilgore--not known as a radical feminist--hopes to revise the state code so that those who rape their spouses can be tried no matter what the circumstances. His proposals to change domestic-violence laws are contained in bills now before
the state Senate and House of Delegates.
In an encouraging development Wednesday, the Senate Courts of Justice Committee unanimously passed the Senate bill, with Kilgore's proposed revisions to the marital-rape subsection of the state code left intact.
It boggles the mind to think that nearly two-thirds of the states in our nation have an exemption on the books for marital rape--an act of violence that's far more widespread than most people believe. The Washington Post reports that here in the Old Dominion, more than 10 percent of women who are sexually assaulted and seek out help from local programs say they have been raped or assaulted by
their husbands.
Some apologists for the marital
-rape exemption contend that elimi-
nating it would lead to a flood of false
rape charges, particularly during
divorce litigation. Kilgore and domestic-violence experts dismiss this argument. "Courts and prosecutors are quick to
get to the bottom of the real facts,"
Kilgore says.
It's hard to figure out why anyone
would want to retain the marital-rape exemption. After all, arguing that a husband should be allowed to rape his wife under certain circumstances is tantamount to arguing that a married woman is not entitled to the same protections against violence as an un-
married woman.
This, as social conservatives (and even the downright Neanderthals) would have to agree, makes marriage look rather unattractive to women. To put it another way, defending the marital-rape exemption turns out to be a not very "pro-family" stance.
Kilgore's plan to criminalize marital rape in all cases still may face considerable opposition as the domestic-violence bills move through the General Assembly. However, the time is long overdue for doing away with this odious codification of patriarchy. As Ruth Micklem, advocacy director for Virginians Against Domestic Violence, says, passage of this legislation "would bring Virginia into the 21st century in regard to women."
We'll see if some of those good ol' boys down the road
in Richmond are ready for
the 21st century. Who knows, maybe they'll finally have the moral courage to make Rich's provocative analysis of male power sound at least a little dated.
RICK MERCIER is a columnist and copy editor for The Free Lance-Star.