Originally posted by Anna
View Post
1. The defence is out of date and should have been abolished.
2. But it wasn't abolished and can therefore still be legitimately invoked
BUT
3. When it was first established, the situation of women was quite different: if a marriage ended, a wife might be expected to have no job, possibly no career (or prospects), be left with children to bring up, face a very difficult time in many ways.
4. That is why the defence is open only to married women and not to men, who will normally have continuing job/career, a lesser responsibility for the children, though they be may equally or more upset at the prospect of a marriage breakdown.
5. Therefore, there should be no case of 'marital coercion' on the grounds that a wife is upset at the prospect of her marriage ending, since that aspect applies as much to men as to women; at the very least it would be against 'natural justice' to allow a woman to claim such grounds but not a man.
6. VP had both a job and a lucrative career, was in no way dependent financially on her husband, her children (from both marriages) were adult and no longer dependent on parents.
Comment