Oregon daily emerald., April 20, 1973, Page 8, Image 8

rights, indicate that any present hope
for large-scale change can hardly be
deemed realistic."
The other solution to legalised sot
HartimiMtiwi most often voiced by
opponents of the ERA is piecemeal
revision of offending statutes.
“Personally, I like my government
dose to me," said Pamela Wise, a
representative of the Committee for the
Preseserv at ion of Womanhood.
“Change the laws an the state level one
by-one. Tell the federal boys no, this
time we’ll do it ourselves," continued
Wise.
In this way, individual state
legislatives could change inequitable
laws one by one, in a progressive series
of reforms. The article in the Yale Law
I—nal pointed out that faith in this
dehcacy and precisian in legislative
husband and wife are one person in law.
The very being or legal existence of the
woman is suspended during the
marriage, or at least is incorporated
and consolidated into that of the
husband, under whose wing and
protection she performs everything.”
Today’s domestic relations law is
largely a confusing web of restrictions
against women on the one hand, and
special allowances for them on the
other.
Domicile
In Black's Law Dictionary, a
domicile is defined as “...that place
where a man has his true, fixed and
permanent home and principal
establishment, and to which whenever
he is absent he has the intention of
returning.”
“Now, males are all screwed op about females.
Maybe passage would help us to treat each other as
human beings first and sex objects second."
process winch has no relationship to
actual legislative capability.”
Piecemeal reform would require
numerous and separate changes by SO
state legislatives and the congress, by
the courts and executive agencies in
each one of these jurisdictions, and by
gjmiliar governmental authorities in
numerous political subdivisions It is
not &eiy that such a monumental,
unwieldy effort would be successfully
completed within am lifetimes.
A constitutional amendment, then,
seems to some to be the only practical
means of guaranteeing a single con
sistent standard of equality imder the
law, one that deals with the unique
characteristics of individuals and not
with classifications based on sex.
When asked if he thought the ERA
necessary. University law professor
Herbert Titus replied, “It is necessary
not to defeat it. If it were defeated,
steps being taken to eliminate
“Ratification of the 27th Amendment
would help create a climate in which
male and female relationships would be
more sensible,*’ said Titus, adding,
“Now, males are all screwed up about
females. Maybe passage would he^> us
to treat each other as human beings
first and an objects second.”
Speculations like these about the
psychological impact at the ERA are
endless, and depend upon one’s point of
view. What Sen. Sam Ervin of North
Carolina would regard as imspeakabie
disaster, Titus would see as necessary,
healthy change.
So, on a more concrete level, what
follows is a subject-by-subject analysis
at bow the proposed 27th Amendment
would affect the existing legislation
discriminating between women and
men.
Under the common law, married
women literally ceased to have
separate legal identities. They were
nonpersons. In his famous Com
mentaries, Blackstone elaborated this
idea as follows: “By merriage, the
•w%v..vv«v..v.v.v.v.v.v.v.v.v.v.v.\v.
Even though Black originally turned
these phrases back in 1891, his
definition and the sexist concept it
embodies have withstood mare than 80
years of legal revision.
The traditional rule is still that a
married woman’s domicile is
automatically that of her husband. Far
from being a mere legal technicality,
one’s domicile can determine in which
state one can vote, run for public office,
serve an juries, pay taxes or have one’s
estate administered.
University women should know that
the male-determinate domicile rule can
affect their residence status in terms ai
tuition.
The current Attorney General of
Oregon, Lee Johnson, explained this
policy when he was asked in 1970 if a
female resident would be forced to pay
non-resident tuition subsequent to her
marriage to a non-resident, even
though she remained physically
present within her state.
“A woman is deemed to take her
husband’s domicile,” said Johnson in
Attorney General Opinions, voi. 35
‘‘...Accordingly, marriage to a non
resident deprives a female student of
her resident status for tuition purposes,
although marriage to a non-resident
has no effect upon the status of a male
student.”
Johnson thinks this is the right order
of things and defends this policy in a
masterfully eloquent example of Catch
22 — even though the female’s domicile
status is baaed an the notion of male
supremacy, the recognition of women’s
rights doesn’t change the policy
because our culture is still male
supremacist.
“Historically, the rule that a female
takes her husband’s domicile may be
based upon the subservient legal and
social status of women,” said Johnson.
“However, it does not became invalid
because of the emancipation of women
and recognition of their rights to
equality under the law, since it con
tinues to realistically reflect the ex
perience and customs of our present
culture.”
When contacted about this matter, a
University admissions official ex
»o 3r*>cth?
Jones f
'$r*>t£hrjc>
martini
plained that an Oregon woman would
not lose her residency status if her non
resident spouse wished to became a
resident.
When asked what would happen if her
spouse didn’t want to become a
resident, the official looked regretful,
drew a deep breath and said, ‘I’m
afraid in that case she’d lose bo*
residency status.
“Though if she didn’t ever tell us or
make a big deal about it,” he added
hopefully, “no one here would know.
The University doesn’t go knocking on
doors’’
Apparently, only under Louisiana law
does a married woman keep her
maiden name and bear the name of her
husband voluntarily, as a matter of
custom.
11 is most probable that the 27th
Amendment would remove the legal
barriers against those women who
wanted to keep their own names after
marriage. Possibly, however, in the
interests of providing a common last
name for a couple’s children, some
courts might decide that married
couples must choose a common last
“A woman is deemed to take her husband’s domicile
.. . Accordingly, marriage to a non-resident deprives a
female student of her resident status for tuition pur
poses, although marriage to a non-resident has no effect
upon the status of a male student.”
Only in five states is there now no
need for this kind of duplicity. Women
in Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii
and Wisconsin can now establish their
own domiciles for all legal purposes. If
the ERA were ratified, all states would
be required to follow suit.
Naming
In marriage, a woman takes her
husband’s last name as her own. This
tradition is obviously symbolic of the
incorporation of her identity into that of
her husband. For that reason, many
women today feel it is demeaning to be
forced to change their name and resist
doing so.
These women who wish to retain their
maiden names after marriage are at
present not only likely to encounter
resistance from the Internal Revenue
Service, voting registrars, motor
vehicle departments and numerous
other non-governmental sources, but
they also are likely to find such a plan
regarded as actually illegal.
The 1971 edition of American
Jurisprudence. 2d, plainly states: “It is
well-settled by common law principles
and immemorial custom that a woman
upon marriage abandons her maiden
name and assumes her husband’s
surname.”
name, but that name wouldn’t
necessarily be the husband's.
Personal injury actions
If a spouse has been seriously in
jured, for example, in an auto accident,
and the case is brought to court, the
judge instructs the jury what benefits
the uninjured spouse could have ex
pected to receive from the now disabled
partner. In most states, these benefits
are sex-based. A wife could expect to
lose support and a husband to lose
personal services, like love and af
fection, sexual relations, bouse work,
child care. The ERA would require that
expected benefits — the projections of
what each spouse does for the other —
not be defined by sex. Oregon statutes
are already written to require this
evaluation of individual circumstances.
Ownership if property
There are two major ways of treating
property ownership between husband
and wife — community property and
common law property. In community
property states, property acquired by
each spouse during marriage is jointly
owned. But in most states with a
community property ownership system
the husband is in charge of this joint