Spousal notification
posted by bitchphd
Between a trackback on my first Alito post (unfortunately, the url doesn't seem to load for me, so I can't post a link) and a few comments in that thread, as well as comments elsewhere in the cyberverse, apparently the issue of spousal notification is being debated in lefty and righty circles. And, as with abortion, there seems to be a sloppy elision of what people think is morally obligatory with what they think is, or should be, legally obligatory.
So. Should married women tell their husbands if they're going to have an abortion?
Yes, of course they should.
Should they be required by law to do so?
No, of course they shouldn't.
See how easy that is? Just like husbands should tell their wives if they're going to be home late from work--but no one in their right mind argues that the law should require them to. Just like sure, kids should tell their parents if they're pregnant. Or if they're drinking. Or if their boyfriends shove them around. Or if they have an eating disorder. Or if they're getting beaten up at school. Just like sure, partners--married or not--should tell each other if they're thinking of cheating. Or if they're having problems at work. Or if they're planning a vacation, or if one of the kids is having problems, or if they've been drinking with the boys (or girls). Just like partners should share housework and child-rearing.
See, people *should* do a lot of things. They should communicate fully and openly. Only, see, people don't always do that, do they? And sometimes they even have good reasons. And you know, requiring them, if they have good reasons, to go through a judge in order to avert telling someone something, is an undue burden.
Like, let's say you're a guy. And your wife has told you that if you drink on poker night, she's gonna divorce your ass because, say, she's decided that drinking is against God's will (why she still allows poker, you don't know). You're not sure she really will, but you know she's gonna pitch a fit and you don't wanna deal with another night of being screamed at and locked out of the house, or having her go complain to the pastor and drag you in for counselling, or cry in front of the kids because you had a beer with some friends. So you go out to play poker, and you have a couple of beers. Are you within your rights to lie to her? Sure. Would it cause an "undue burden" if, before you could lie to her, you had to swing by a court of law and explain your situation to a judge and get the judge's ok? What if you knew that the judge, who worked in family law, had sat on hundreds of cases where alcoholism destroyed marriages, and was therefore strongly disinclined to give people a pass for drinking and lying about it?
Same goddamn diff. You know what the situation is in your marriage. Yeah, you might be a lying alcoholic jerk, but it's also possible that, in fact, your wife is a controlling freak.
In other words, the law--and all those people who sit around saying, "well so and so really SHOULD do x"--really need to mind their own goddamn business.
So. Should married women tell their husbands if they're going to have an abortion?
Yes, of course they should.
Should they be required by law to do so?
No, of course they shouldn't.
See how easy that is? Just like husbands should tell their wives if they're going to be home late from work--but no one in their right mind argues that the law should require them to. Just like sure, kids should tell their parents if they're pregnant. Or if they're drinking. Or if their boyfriends shove them around. Or if they have an eating disorder. Or if they're getting beaten up at school. Just like sure, partners--married or not--should tell each other if they're thinking of cheating. Or if they're having problems at work. Or if they're planning a vacation, or if one of the kids is having problems, or if they've been drinking with the boys (or girls). Just like partners should share housework and child-rearing.
See, people *should* do a lot of things. They should communicate fully and openly. Only, see, people don't always do that, do they? And sometimes they even have good reasons. And you know, requiring them, if they have good reasons, to go through a judge in order to avert telling someone something, is an undue burden.
Like, let's say you're a guy. And your wife has told you that if you drink on poker night, she's gonna divorce your ass because, say, she's decided that drinking is against God's will (why she still allows poker, you don't know). You're not sure she really will, but you know she's gonna pitch a fit and you don't wanna deal with another night of being screamed at and locked out of the house, or having her go complain to the pastor and drag you in for counselling, or cry in front of the kids because you had a beer with some friends. So you go out to play poker, and you have a couple of beers. Are you within your rights to lie to her? Sure. Would it cause an "undue burden" if, before you could lie to her, you had to swing by a court of law and explain your situation to a judge and get the judge's ok? What if you knew that the judge, who worked in family law, had sat on hundreds of cases where alcoholism destroyed marriages, and was therefore strongly disinclined to give people a pass for drinking and lying about it?
Same goddamn diff. You know what the situation is in your marriage. Yeah, you might be a lying alcoholic jerk, but it's also possible that, in fact, your wife is a controlling freak.
In other words, the law--and all those people who sit around saying, "well so and so really SHOULD do x"--really need to mind their own goddamn business.
Posted at 7:12 AM
|
