Showing posts with label The relationship between men and women. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The relationship between men and women. Show all posts

Sunday, March 17, 2024

If you wonder what is giving rise to the strong populist/Christian Nationalist/Naotional Conservatism reaction in some quarters . . .

 it's complete crap like this:

Theorizing White heteropatriarchal supremacy, marriage fundamentalism, and the mechanisms that maintain family inequality

The abstract:

Abstract

In this article, I draw upon critical feminist and intersectional frameworks to delineate an overarching orientation to structural oppression and unequal power relations that advantages White heteropatriarchal nuclear families (WHNFs) and marginalizes others as a function of family structure and relationship status. Specifically, I theorize that marriage fundamentalism, like structural racism, is a key structuring element of White heteropatriarchal supremacy. Marriage fundamentalism can be understood as an ideological and cultural phenomenon, where adherents espouse the superiority of the two-parent married family. But it is also a hidden or unacknowledged structural mechanism of White heteropatriarchal family supremacy that is essential to the reproduction and maintenance of family inequality in the United States. Through several examples, I demonstrate how—since colonization—marriage fundamentalism has been instantiated through laws, policies, and practices to unduly advantage WHNFs while simultaneously marginalizing Black, Indigenous, immigrant, mother-headed, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning (LGBTQ+) families, among others. I conclude with a call for family scientists to further interrogate how marriage fundamentalism reproduces family inequality in American family life and to work toward its dismantling. A deeper understanding of how these complex and often covert mechanisms of structural oppression operate in family life is needed to disrupt these mechanisms and advance family equality and justice.

Marriage is a human universal.  It's not "white", and indeed "white" doesn't really exist either.  When people say "white" they mean Western European culture, maybe, or maybe they mean American European culture. Or maybe they just don't know what they mean and are in fact simply reinforcing the language invented for the more recent form of slavery that existed in North American until 1865.

Anyway you look at it, when you wonder why people go in and vote for Trump, well, stuff like this has an awful lot to do with it.


Saturday, March 16, 2024

The 2024 Election, Part XIV. Wishful Thinking.


February 27, 2024

Just yesterday, I posted this item by Robert Reich:
I'm seeing a lot less of this sort of commentary than I did for a while. At first Democrats would post the "I hope the GOP nominates Trump" as we'll beat him for sure, followed by, next "everyone is ignoring how well Joe Biden is really doing."  

Over the last month Trump has cemented his nomination.  He will be the GOP nominee.  He is ahead in the polls for the Fall.

What Reich notes is correct.  There's a very larger number of independents who will not vote for Trump under any circumstances whatsoever. And, added to that, there are an appreciable number of Republicans who feel the same way.

But are there enough of both in swing states?

I really doubt it.

A second Trump Presidency is going to be, at best, a very unpleasant and bad thing for the United States.  It doesn't speak well for the country right now that somebody like Trump can even pull down a sizable number of votes, let alone be a serious contender for the Oval Office.  Whether it's a sign of American decline or will be remembered as a tragic, ignorant era for the US is yet to be seen, but it's not good anyway you look at it.

Of course, I could be wrong. And odd things are now happening.  Republicans are being forced to deal with the real meanings of social conservatism for the first time since the early 1970s, and are proving uncomfortable with it.  The behind the scene hopeful backing Trump hope to go a lot, lot further yet, even though the MAGA crowd appears perfectly comfortable with its own vices that real social conservatives would address.  Mike Johnson, who saw himself as a would be Moses in this effort, looks instead to be pathetically weak. The abandonment of Ukraine by the MAGA GOP over Donald Trump's bizarre love for Putin is looking pretty bad. There are a lot of things left to occur, but anyway you look at it, we're in the strangest American election to have every occured.

February 28, 2024

Biden and Trump won their respective primaries advancing the two tickets Americans want the least for the Fall, assuming that Americans continue to believe the absurdity that both parties shove on them, that nobody can vote for a third party.

About 13.5% of Democrats joined in a childish protest against Biden over support for Israel in the Middle East, somehow believing that throwing the election to Trump, who can be guaranteed to be a bigger supporter of Israel than Biden, serves their interest.  This also is evidence of the strong progressive wing in the party, whose influence drives away moderate Democrats.  This shows Biden to be in real trouble, but then, as the song says, the Democrats have decided to "knock on wood".
Marianne Williamson has unsuspended her campaign, and is back in the Democratic race, where nobody noticed she was running in the first place.

Get a clue, Marianne.

March 1, 2024

On the US Mexico border yesterday, Donald Trump complained about:
People who don't speak languages. We have languages coming in to our country, nobody that speaks those languages. They're truly foreign languages. Nobody speaks them

What?

I think I know what he means, but this is completely nonsensical. People don't speak the languages?  Nobody speaks them? How are they coming here then.

Something isn't right with Trump.

March 3, 2024

Trump won the Idaho Caucus and Missouri Caucus and took the delegates from the Michigan Convention.

At a rally within the last few days, Trump stated:

"And Putin has so little respect for Obama that he's starting to throw around the nuclear word."

On this occasion, the crowd actually fell into silence.  But here we are again.  Trump not being able to recall who he is running against is significant.

March 4, 2024

Hinging its decision on the idea that the 14th Amendment is not self enacting, the Supreme Court reversed a Colorado Supreme Court decision barring Trump from running.

And so the disaster continues.

Trump won North Dakota yesterday.

He will win Super Tuesday today.

Haley won Washington, D.C. over the weekend.

Democrats are now pinning their hopes on the 40% of GOP voters who are opposing Trump in the primaries.  That's a forlorn hope.

March 5, 2024

Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema, in her announcement that she is not running for reelection, took Americans to task, stating:

Americans still choose to retreat farther to their partisan corners... The only political victories that matter these days are symbolic, attacking your opponents on cable news or social media. Compromise is a dirty word.

She's right. 

March 6, 2024

Trump won every Super Tuesday primary except for Vermont, which was won by Haley.

Biden won all the Democratic Super Tuesday states.

March 6, 2024

Nikki Haley had dropped out of the race.

Dean Phillips dropped out of the race.

And so the Republican Party will present with an ancient, strange narcissist who attacked the democratic institutions of the country but who is loved by his right wing base like a bobbysoxer at an Elvis concern, and the Democrats will present with an ancient nice man who has been willing to compromise his beliefs to satiate the left in his party. 

It's the race that most of America doesn't want.

Assuming both men are alive by the election, which given their ages is not a certainty, it's very unlikely that either will survive the next term of office, making the VP choice more important than ever.  We don't know who Trump's VP will be, but that person will have to at least appear as a fawning sycophant. Biden's is, of course, the unliked Kamala Harris.

And so the nation continues to endure the tragedy of inadequacy that is propelling it to destruction.

March 7, 2024

Mitch McConnell has endorsed Trump, although in a very lukewarm fashion.

Nonetheless, it's a disgusting end to his role as the leader of the GOP in the Senate.

John Barrasso, who has already endorsed Trump, and who is running for reelection, has put his hat in the ring to be McConnell's successor as head of the party in the Senate.

March 8, 2024

George Santos showed up at the State of the Union Address and is indicating he's running for Congress again.

March 12, 2024

North Carolina Republican Party Chairman Michael Whatley was chosen by the RNC to serve as the party's new Trump sycophantic head, and Trump's daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, as co-chair in unanimous votes.

The Republican Party has died, which makes up my mind in my earlier "shall I stay or shall I go" question I posed here.

Positions with the RNC are being slashed as the party merges with the Trump campaign organization so that it can more effectively apply the Führerprinzip.

March 13, 2024

Both ancient candidates now have enough delegates from an ancient and outdated electoral system to make them their party's nominees.

Which doesn't mean they have to be the choices, even though they will be.

An ABC News/Ipsos survey found that 59% of Americans view Trump unfavorably while 29% rate him favorably.

A weird sideshow occured on This Week last weekend when the host repeatedly asked Nancy Mace, who had revealed that she was a rape victim some time ago, why she supports Donald Trump, who has been convicted by a civil jury of having committed rape, although not directly.  She never could really answer the question, essentially conceding that she's supporting somebody icky for political expediency, while trying to accuse the questioner of shaming her for being a rape victim.

She looked like a complete political hack.

She actually had a point, however, and never really made it.  Trump wasn't convicted by a civil jury of rape, but rather sexual abuse.  What Carroll claimed Trump did was to force himself on her as he shoved his mouth on hers, yanked her tights down, and penetrated her with his hand and then his penis. That would definitely be rape.  The verdict, however, would indicate that the jury thought Trump did something unwelcome, but not necessarily the penetration aspects.

That leaves enough room for those who support Trump to state that in actuality he wasn't found liable in a civil trial for rape itself, as commonly understood.  Mace stumbled into trying to say it, but saying "he didn't rape her he instead forced himself upon her and conducted force groping or something, according to a New York jury" is a pretty poor defense.

So, in the end, Mace did the very thing she supposedly spoke against, excused a man of a type of sexual violation of a woman and shamed her, at least vicariously, for which she should be ashamed.

March 14, 2024

No Labels Co-Chairman former North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory, region from that position, using the classic "more time with his family" excuse.

Colorado Republican Ken Buck is resigning his office this month, which means that Colorado will have to hold a special election to replace him.  He was from the Freedom Caucus right but took shots at the expired GOP for conducting unconstitutional impeachment efforts and made it clear that his resignation is due to discuss.

Lauren Boebert had moved into his district in hopes of keeping her political carpetbaggery going and is upset about the whole thing.

March 15, 2024

Donald Trump endorsed Barrasso for GOP Senate whip.

Boebert's problems may be much more complicated than originally thought, according to a Colorado newspaper.  She's an incumbent but carpetbagging her way to a new district, Ken Buck's, in hopes of retaining a seat. Colorado's law provides that an election has to be held to fill Buck's seat, which is now scheduled for the same day as Colorado's primary.  The party has to pick the candidate and there's rumors that Boebert might not be it.

Moreover, if she is it, she'll have to resign her current seat in Congress as Colorado's law doesn't allow a person to run for one seat while holding another, apparently.

Or so some say.

In the Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Führer category, Nancy Mace, running for a seat from South Carolina, who last week couldn't explain why a woman who is a rape victim is supportering somebody found liable for sexual abuse, took the positio that her primary rival Catherine Templeton should drop out of race now that Trump has endorsed Mace's re-election.

"To do otherwise would be to oppose the direction our party leader, Donald Trump, has set for us,” Campaign Manager John Mason Long stated.

An interesting article was published in the Cowboy State Daily by former Wyoming Speaker of the House Tom Lubnau:

Tom Lubnau: Analyzing The Anonymous Mailers Attacking Chuck Gray

The dollar figure aspect of this is a little shocking.

March 16, 2024.

Mike Pence will not endorse Donald Trump, which is to Pence's credit.  He's one of the few Republicans whith a backbone.

The WEA is mounting a campaign against far right Casper Republican Jeanette Ward.

March 13, 2024

Ward was the subject of a second major ad in the Trib.


Ward also drew a lengthy letter to the Editor in the Trib.  Usually I don't post those, but I will here as this is interesting.

Ward wasting time with culture wars

Representative Jeanette Ward,

House District 57, has been doing a poor job of representing her constituents and listening to their needs. She has voted against numerous bills that would have helped Wyoming citizens and instead wasted valuable time during the legislative session touting culture war issues. House Bill 50, the “What is a Woman” act, is a prime example of this. During a budget session the legislature has 20 days to pass a budget. That is literally the only job that legislators have during the budget session. It takes a 2/3 majority to get a non-budget bill to the floor for debate. Knowing this, Representative Ward introduced a bill that wasted time and resources and was completely unnecessary. That bill rightly died because it failed introduction.

This session, she also voted against bills that committees had spent many hours considering during the interim period, which was disrespectful to their work and slowed down the legislative process. She voted against funding the 988 suicide hotline even though Wyoming has one of the highest suicide rates in the nation, literally voting against saving lives. Last session she voted against most of the bills that would have helped families and disadvantaged Wyoming citizens, including Medicare for Moms, which helps low-income women provide for their babies. Fortunately, other legislators understood the issue and the bill passed. Representative Ward is not interested in helping Wyoming’s most vulnerable citizens, she would rather propose bills that are solutions looking for problems.

This is not acceptable. House District 57 deserves a legislator who listens to constituents, focuses her time on the budget during a budget session, and understands what genuine issues matter to Wyoming. She is not it. We need someone who has solutions to Wyoming problems, not someone who fans the flames of culture wars. Voters need to remember this on election day.

Judy Trohkimoinen,

Casper

This would suggest that perhaps there's a rising effort against Ward, who was endorsed by her predecessor, now Secretary of State Gray, because of her far right views, even though she had next to no connection with the state when she arrived, or people are getting tired of her.  

In some ways, this reflects a rising feature of Wyoming's politics in which the old Party is beginning to react more strongly to the Trump Party.


March 16, 2024

After a break of one day, the WEA resumbed its advertisements on Jeanette Ward.

I don'tt know of anyone running against Ward, but given the persistence of the campaign, somebody must be lined up that the WEA, the largest union in the state, supports.

Columnsit Rod Miller of the extremely conservative Cowboy State Daily, even though he's a traditional Wyoming Republican, wrote on the invasion of out of state carpetbagging Republicans.


Miller isn't the only one concerned:


Schuler expressed concern that this was in part due to the recent arrivals.

Last edition:

Tuesday, March 12, 2024

On duty and other things.

In principio antequam pondus officii.

More of the theme of the week. 

Now in regard to the matters about which you wrote: “It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman,” but because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband.

The husband should fulfill his duty toward his wife, and likewise the wife toward her husband.

A wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather her husband, and similarly a husband does not have authority over his own body, but rather his wife.

Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control.

This I say by way of concession, however, not as a command.

Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire.

To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord): A wife should not separate from her husband—and if she does separate she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband—and a husband should not divorce his wife.

To the rest I say (not the Lord): if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she is willing to go on living with him, he should not divorce her;and if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he is willing to go on living with her, she should not divorce her husband.

For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through the brother. Otherwise your children would be unclean, whereas in fact they are holy.

If the unbeliever separates, however, let him separate. The brother or sister is not bound in such cases; God has called you to peace.

For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband; or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

The Life That the Lord Has Assigned.

Only, everyone should live as the Lord has assigned, just as God called each one. I give this order in all the churches.

Was someone called after he had been circumcised? He should not try to undo his circumcision. Was an uncircumcised person called? He should not be circumcised. Circumcision means nothing, and uncircumcision means nothing; what matters is keeping God’s commandments. Everyone should remain in the state in which he was called.

Were you a slave when you were called? Do not be concerned but, even if you can gain your freedom, make the most of it. For the slave called in the Lord is a freed person in the Lord, just as the free person who has been called is a slave of Christ.g You have been purchased at a price. Do not become slaves to human beings.

Brothers, everyone should continue before God in the state in which he was called.

Advice to Virgins and Widows.

Now in regard to virgins, I have no commandment from the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.

So this is what I think best because of the present distress: that it is a good thing for a person to remain as he is.

Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek a separation. Are you free of a wife? Then do not look for a wife.

If you marry, however, you do not sin, nor does an unmarried woman sin if she marries; but such people will experience affliction in their earthly life, and I would like to spare you that.

I tell you, brothers, the time is running out. From now on, let those having wives act as not having them, those weeping as not weeping, those rejoicing as not rejoicing, those buying as not owning, those using the world as not using it fully. For the world in its present form is passing away.

I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord.

But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

I am telling you this for your own benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you, but for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction.

If anyone thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, and if a critical moment has come and so it has to be, let him do as he wishes. He is committing no sin; let them get married.

The one who stands firm in his resolve, however, who is not under compulsion but has power over his own will, and has made up his mind to keep his virgin, will be doing well.

So then, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry her will do better.

A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whomever she wishes, provided that it be in the Lord.n

She is more blessed, though, in my opinion, if she remains as she is, and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.

St. Paul to the Corinthians.

Sub finem, cum spe cessat officium.

Related Thread:

The traffic circle.

Thursday, February 29, 2024

Leap Day

Pope Gregory XIII, 1502 – 1585

Which is notable mostly because it simply is. We only get them, and don't notice them much, every four years.  Other than teasing people born on the day and miscalculating their actual age, not much will occur.

The added day, of course, come about due to the calendar adjustment that went into effect with the introduction of the Gregorian Calendar in October 1582. The added day was to keep the calendar from getting increasingly inaccurate.  The entire Christian world didn't adopt the new calendar all at once, in part due to the Great Schism and the start of the Protestant Reformation, but over time, it's taken over nearly completely for the entire globe.  About the only remaining use of the prior Julian Calendar is in some parts of the Eastern Orthodox world for their liturgical calendar, and even that is no longer universally true.

Pope Gregory actually met with a lot of opposition to the new calendar, FWIW.  Members of the general public were really upset at first.  Spain, Portugal, Poland-Lithuania and the Italian states nonetheless adopted it nearly immediately.  France, some of the Dutch Republic, and the Catholic states of the Holy Roman Empire and Swiss Confederation did in 1587.

Denmark and Norway, then one state, and the rest of the Dutch Republic didn't fall into line until 1700-1701, by which time the Julian Calendar was seriously out of whack.  The UK didn't adopt it until 1752.  Sweden came around in 1753.

You would think a day as odd as Leap Day would be associated with some interesting customs, and it actually is, or more accurately was.  In Wyoming, there once was a custom of appointing a teenager to be Governor for the day, honorific of course.  I don't think that occurs anymore, but I guess we'll see today.  If this does occur, I have not taken note of it recently.   Wyoming Public Media reported it has having occured as recently as 1940, FWIW.

One political thing that does happen is the U.S. Presidential Election.  It's always in a Leap Year. . . so we get to enjoy one more extra day of campaigning.

A tradition in the English-speaking world is that women can propose to men on this day, which, in some versions of the custom, extends to the whole year. This tradition was surprisingly wide spread in societies speaking English, and is attributed by some to the Irish Saint, St. Brigid, who predates the Gregorian Calendar by quite some measure.   She died in 525.

Anyhow, supposedly she licensed women to propose to men every four years, which is likely just a story.

"Taking" a person, then, was a much more serious matter, even though it should be equally serious now.

Even when I was a kid, however, there remained the odd custom, apparently limited to English-speaking countries as noted, that in Leap Years girls could "ask out" a boy, it being implicit that otherwise that was a right/burden that fell to males.  It still, in fact, largely does.  This appears to have been the remnant of a custom in English-speaking countries, no doubt only lightly observed, that on Leap Day, this day, women could propose marriage to men, that also being a prerogative which then, and largely now, was reserved to men by custom.

Frankly, this is vaguely threatening.

How much of a deal this really was, I don't know, but it was enough of one that late in the 19th Century and early in the 20th Century it generated cartoons, not all of which were kind, and it generated cards, most of which were, although more than a few of them were somewhat aggressive. The cards suggest that women were using them, so in fact some women did avail themselves of the licensed role reversal and propose.

Less threatening.

As odd as this may seem now, it may have made some sense at the time.  Another thread we have in draft deals with the economics, in part, of marriage in the age, but things were, quite frankly, tighter.  As that thread reveals, a lot more men went through life unmarried than do now, and far more than we might suspect.  More than a little of that was probably economic hesitation.  For women, however, unlike men, being unmarried was a societal strike against them and often a personal lifelong disaster.  If they were waiting for a proposal, this was a societally licensed way to deliver it.



Whatever was going on with this, it seems to have flat out ended in its original form right about the era of the cards we see here.  What happened?


I don't know, but what I suspect is that World War One dramatically altered the marriage landscape.  Indeed, we dealt with this briefly in regard to Catherinettes;

In France, for St. Catherine's saint's day, the Catherinettes were out on the streets:




From John Blackwell's Twitter feed on the topic.

We noted this custom in 2020:

The day is also St. Catherine's Day,, the feast day for that saint, which at the time was still celebrated in France as a day for unmarried women who had obtained twenty-five years of age.  Such women were known as Catherinettes. Women in general were committed since the Middle Ages to the protection of St. Catherine and on this day large crowds of unmarried 25 year old women wearing hats to mark their 25th year would gather for a celebration of sorts, where well wishers would wish them a speedy end to their single status. The custom remained strong at least until the 1930s but has since died out.


This of course is from a different culture yet, the French, but it addresses the same topic, with the French taking it up annually, and more cheerfully it looks like.

This custom apparently has largely died, but interestingly milliners are trying to revive it, as it was associated with outlandish hats.  Having said that, French single women over 25 were still out on the streets with wild costumes and hats in honor of the day, whereas the somewhat maudlin English Leap Day cards don't seem to have made it past World War one.  It's hard not to draw that line in the case of the Leap Day cards.  1916 was a Leap Year, and then 1920.  By 1920 there were a lot of single women in English-speaking countries (and in France too) who were going to be single for life, the war having made that a fact.

Before we leave this topic, it's interesting to note that in Medieval Times, after the introduction of the Gregorian Calendar, in some European countries this was Bachelor's Day for the same reason. I.e., Bachelors were subject to proposals.  It actually was a matter of law in some countries.  In some places it became the custom for men of means to be required to buy any suitor whose proposal he turned down twelve pairs of gloves so that she could hide her embarrassment at not having an engagement ring.

While on this, FWIW, as we've noted before, while spinster status was regarded as a disaster earl in the 20th Century, what exactly constituted it is misunderstood. As we have noted in another thread:





That deals with the averages, of course.  Looking at my own grandparents, I think one set was married in their late 20s or early 30s, while another in their early 20s.  My parents were in their 30s.

Related Threads:

Of interest, I note that some other blogs we link into this site also noted Leap Day or Leap Year, with some noting the same items we noted above.

Leap Year



Shockingly young! Surprisingly old! Too young, too old! Well, nothing much actually changing at all. . . Marriage ages then. . . and now. . and what does it all mean?

Blog Mirror: Getting "On With It"

From the excellent blog City Father.

Getting "On With It"

We've had a variety of posts sort of ballpark on this topic, more or less, recently.  Most of them have come up in the context of comparing "then and now", one of the purposes of this blog

This entry is so well done, I really can't riff off of it much.  What Fr. Franco states is so well stated, that I should just leave it alone, so I'll mostly do so.

To the extent I won't, it should be noted I guess that things in the Western World are so existentially screwed up right now, it's frightening, and it's expressing itself in corrupted ways in our culture and our politics, which are an expression of our culture, so much that it threatens to destroy it, and perhaps even us.  A certain getting back to the basics, or roots, seems to me to very much what is needed to be done, which one party in this contest seeks to do, but doesn't understand how to do it, or what the existential truths are, and the other seeks to eliminate it and create a bold new world which it won't succeed in doing.

I was unaware of the Rituale Romanum's "Exhortation before Marriage discussed in this text.  I wish that hadn't been removed, and I wish it would return.

Foothill Agrarian: From OUR to MY

Foothill Agrarian: From OUR to MY: During the Holidays, I jokingly told my coworkers that I couldn’t host a party because a bachelor had moved into my house. At the risk of pe...

Sunday, February 18, 2024

Legislatures. Back to the future and other diversions?

A scene from the early 1970s Wyoming legislatures at the Hitching Post?  See below.

Former Wyoming Legislator Tom Lubnau, who was truly one of the great ones in the old school Wyoming way, has taken up writing columns for The Cowboy State Daily. That's to the CSD's credit and shows its effort to become a real electronic journal, something that's impressive considering it was set up as a right wing organ.  Lubnau is a conservative Wyoming Republican, but a conservative Wyoming Republican, something that's becoming increasingly rare.  

Or maybe not.

He's not afraid of poking at the wolverine.

He recently wrote this interesting item:

Tom Lubnau: Legislating Private Parts Is Popular This Legislative Session

This op ed is written from the point of view that virtually defined Wyoming Republicans for my whole adult life, up until the Obama/Trump Era, when things began to get really radical in the legislature.

His article is illuminating and I'm linking it in for several reasons.

One of those is that Lubnau give a really nice discussion of the law as it used to be, on some of the same topics that I addressed here:

Until Death Do Us Part. Divorce and Related Domestic Law. Late 19th/Early 20th Century, Mid 20th Century, Late 20th/Early 21st Century. An example of the old law, and the old customs, being infinately superior to the current ones and a call to return to them.


I note this, in particular, from his article:

I guess in thinking about it, I came of age in the Disco Era and that's the law I'm familiar with.  Lubnau is right, the GOP in this state, from the 70s on, really didn't care what you were doing, with whom, behind closed doors, as long as you kept your business to yourself, and it also didn't really care if your marriages broke up, etc., as a result of it, or anything else.  I'd assumed it had long been that way, but as Lubnau's quote from the Wyoming Compiled Statutes, 1910, shows, that's not the case.

I looked it up in the actual 1910 Code, and Lubnau was a little off.  He must have been reading the 1970s vintage codification, or miscited it.  The provison, and those otherwise cited in this thread, were still there in 1957, the last version of the by then much expanded Wyoming statutes I had handy, and they were almost certainly there up until the early 1970s.  In 1910, it was a different statutory section that the cited number (and the number was different in 1957), but here, right from the 1910 book, is what it states.


This is in a section of the statutes on offenses to public morality, and in looking at it, I found that something else I had thought to be illegal, but couldn't later fine, was in fact illegal, that being cohabitation without being married.


So, in my earlier statement that I had thought it was illegal, was in fact correct.  It was illegal.

Seduction of minors, keeping in mind that the age of majority, was a crime, but not quite in the fashion modern statutes provide for it, which would now be a species of rape. At the time, seduction of underage women, at least "older" ones, was a misdemeanor, although this raises interesting questions given that women could clearly marry at 18, or younger, at the time. This relates back to the earlier discussion we had, in the threat noted above, regarding Seduction at law.


At the same time, however, Section 5803 of the 1910 Code provide that rape, conventionally defined, was a felony, as well as having carnal knowledge of a female under age 18.  The dual age of majority, long a feature of Wyoming's law, was apparently already there.  Particularly notable, however, is that the law didn't distinguish between rape and statutory rape, they were the same.

It did distinguish between male and female.  A man could not be a victim of rape under the statute, although that would have constituted assault in any event.

Lubnau goes on in his article to comment:
It seems, now, there is a trend to sponsor legislation to invite the State of Wyoming back into the bedroom.

One has to wonder if regulating bedroom conduct is the pressing issue of the day, or if there is some other motive such as creating a campaign issue for the election season, that is driving the legislation.  In other words, how many people do you meet every day whose biggest concern is lack of regulation of private parts? 
Following that, he takes a look at HB 50 (What is a Woman Act) HB 68 repealing the obscenity exception for school, college, university, museum or public library activities or in the course of employment of such an organization, HB 88 making it illegal to “publicly communicate” obscene material, Democratic HB 76, making it illegal to interfere with a woman’s right to an abortion if the fetus is not viable*, or in cases of rape, incest or threat to the life of the mother., HB 137 requiring a pregnant mother to receive an ultrasound prior to receiving a chemical abortion “in order to provide the pregnant woman the opportunity to view the active ultrasound of the unborn child and hear the heartbeat of the unborn child if the heartbeat is audible.”

And that's probably not all of these.

They all did fail, fwiw, most failing to secure introduction.  The reasons vary, including procedural, but it might actually show that more of the old style, post mid 1970s Republicans remain in the legislature than might be supposed.  For that matter, however, it might also show that a lot of the populist legislators everywhere, at the state and Federal level, aren't hugely familiar with the legislative process.  In Wyoming trying to advance a bunch of these bills in a budget session, after declaring that you had the strength to advance them, was likely a mistake.

The obscenity one is interesting, as the 1910 Code had a section on that, providing:


The failed proposed statues state:
HOUSE BILL NO. HB0068

Obscenity-impartial conformance.

Sponsored by: Representative(s) Hornok, Angelos, Bear, Neiman, Ottman, Pendergraft, Penn, Rodriguez-Williams, Strock, Trujillo and Ward and Senator(s) Ide

A BILL

for

AN ACT relating to crimes and offenses; repealing an exception to the crime of promoting obscenity regarding possessing obscene materials for specified bona fide educational purposes; and providing for an effective date.

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming:

Section 1.  W.S. 6-4-302(c)(ii) is repealed.

Section 2.  This act is effective July 1, 2025.

And:

HOUSE BILL NO. HB0088

Public display of obscene material.

Sponsored by: Representative(s) Ottman, Davis, Hornok, Penn and Strock

A BILL

for

AN ACT relating to crimes and offenses; prohibiting public communication of obscene material; providing a definition; and providing for an effective date.

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming:

Section 1.  W.S. 6‑4‑301(a) by creating a new paragraph (vi) and 6‑4‑302(a)(iii) are amended to read:

6‑4‑301.  Definitions.

(a)  As used in this article:

(vi)  "Publicly communicate" means to display, post, exhibit, give away or vocalize material in such a way that the material may be readily and distinctly perceived by the public at large by normal unaided vision or hearing.

6‑4‑302.  Promoting obscenity; penalties.

(a)  A person commits the crime of promoting obscenity if he:

(iii)  Knowingly disseminates or publicly communicates obscene material.

Section 2.  This act is effective July 1, 2024.

The abortion bills, of which we have now had a variety, are interesting too, as I ran across the original 1910 statutes on that, which may well have been modified before 1973 (I don't know). Abortion was still illegal in 1973, I just don't know if the exact same text remained until then. In 1910, the law provided:
§ 5808. Attempted miscarriage. 
Whoever prescribes or administers to any pregnant woman, or to any woman whom he supposes to be preg- nant , any drug , medicine , or substance whatever, with intent thereby to procure a miscarriage of such woman ; or with like intent uses any instrument or means whatever, unless such miscarriage is necessary to preserve her life, shall if the woman miscarries or dies in consequence thereof , be imprisoned in the penitentiary not more than fourteen years .
§ 5809. Woman soliciting miscarriage . Every woman who shall so- licit of any person any medicine , drug or substance or thing whatever , and shall take the same , or shall submit to any operation or other means whatever , with intent thereby to procure a miscarriage (except when necessary for the purpose of saving the life of the mother or child), shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars and imprisoned in the county jail not more than six months ; and any person who , in any manner whatever, unlawfully aids or assists any such woman to a violation of this section , shall be liable to the same penalty.
I'm not going to comment on any of these, but I'm only noting that this provides a really interesting example of the evolution of the Legislature, and for that matter a Western legislature that's been Republican controlled the entire time. Republicans of the 70s and 80s would have a hard time recognizing the party today if they hadn't been there for the evolution.  I suppose that's true of the Democrats then and now as well.

I'm also noting it as I earlier quixotically argued that the heart balm statutes and accompanying provisions ought to be restored.  Lubnau has gotten into the weeks and found one of the statutes of that era that I didn't address, §7206 of the 1910 code.

Going back to that code, a fair amount of it would be unconstitutional today, as the United States Supreme Court had found that the sodomy provisions are contrary to some vague unwritten stuff in the penumbra of the Constitution having to do with privacy.  "Privacy" doesn't actually appear in the text of the Constitution.  The last crime noted, and the one about animals, is probably still capable of being illegal, and actually the last one, which would have to do with adults in relation to minors is probably actually still illegal elsewhere.  To some degree, with this statute, you have to read between the lines, but to some extent you do not.  The law basically criminalized anything contrary to nature, and it was pretty clear that there was an accepted concept of what nature, in this context, meant.  Frankly there still really is, although now, save for minors and "beasts" we license it societally.

The provisions on rape and abortion could probably have just been left alone, keeping in mind that abortion was legalized under Roe, and then taken back to the state under Dodd's.  Had that been all left untouched, the law would arguably have been clearer now than it is.  Interestingly, the statute drafters of that era tended to use an economy of words which tended to make their intent quite clear.

What about the statutes pertaining to "heart balm" and, well, sex?

Today's legislature of the Freedom Caucus variety, all over the country, clearly looks backwards to restoring society to what they imagine it was. This actually shows what it was.  And not just that, but the statutes regarding divorce as well.

Let's look once more.


"Shacking up" was illegal.  Given the present state of Constitutional Law, I doubt it could be made illegal (I'm quite certain it couldn't be).  Would the social warriors be game for trying?

This concept, quite frankly, underpins everyone other one regarding marriage.  It was designed to prevent what the 1910 statues called "bastardy" and the burden it created on society, and it grasped what marriage really was.  For that reason, quite frankly, I'd be for its return (although as stated, I don't think it can be under the current interpretation of the Constitution.  Those populist right-wingers who would not go that far, probably ought to reconsider their positions on things

Those who would be horrified by such a proposal, and frankly that's probably most people now, ought to reconsider their support for populism, if they are populists.

And then there is this:


Would the legislature of today go that far?  Again, this is clearly unconstitutional under the current law, and it would in fact outlaw homosexual conduct, as well as a bunch of non-homosexual conduct.  Presumably no modern legislature would be comfortable with what the pre 1970s Wyoming legislature, and pre 1970s Wyoming society, was in this era.  Probably nobody ought to be, as this is really invasive.

What about divorce, the subject that the other thread was sort of on, and this one sort of is on as well, and which again gets to the heart of the topic.

Ealier in the state's history, the legislature barred remarriage within a year, which is signficant if we consider that cohabitation without being married was flat out illegal.  The 1910 statutes provide:
§ 3951. Remarriage prohibited within one year . 
During the period of one year from the granting of a decree of divorce , neither party thereto shall be permitted to remarry to any other person . Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a mis- demeanor , and shall be fined in any sum not less than twenty - five dollars nor more than one hundred dollars , or be imprisoned in the county jail not exceeding three months , in the discretion of the court.
Frankly, I'd think this a worthwhile provision and it likewise, like the staute on cohabitation, ought to be restored.

Going from there, I'd note that in 1910 the statutes on dissolving marriages started off iwth annullement, which is now an afterthough in the statutes.  It wasn't theen, and was relatively extenisvely addressed, indicaditng that hte drafteres thought that a more likely event, potentially, then divorce.

Divorce required cause, those being:
§ 3924. Causes for divorce . 

A divorce from the bonds of matrimony may be decreed by the district court of the county where the parties , or one of them reside , on the application of the aggrieved party by petition , in either of the following.cases : 
First - When adultery has been committed by any husband or wife . 
Second - When one of the parties was physically incompetent at the time of the marriage , and the same has continued to the time of the divorce . 
Third - When one of the parties has been convicted of a felony and sentenced to imprisonment therefor in any prison , and no pardon granted , after a divorce for that cause, shall restore such party to his or her conjugal rights . 
Fourth - When either party has wilfully deserted the other for the term of one year . 
Fifth - When the husband or wife shall have become an habitual drunkard . 
Sixth - When one of the parties has been guilty of extreme cruelty to the other . 
Seventh - When the husband for the period of one year , has negected to provide the common necessaries of life , when such neglect is not the result of poverty, on the part of the husband, which he could not avoid by ordinary industry . 
Eighth - When either party shall offer such indignities to the other , as shall render his or her condition intolerable . 
Ninth - When the husband shall be guilty of such conduct as to constitute him a vagrant within the meaning of the law respecting vag- rancy . 
Tenth - When prior to the contract of marriage or the solemnization thereof, either party shall have been convicted of a felony or infamous crime in any state , territory or county without knowledge on the part of the other party of such fact at the time of such marriage . Eleventh - When the intended wife at the time of contracting mariage, or at the time of the solemnization thereof shall have been pregnant by any other man than her intended husband and without his knowledge at the time of such solemnization . [ R. S. 1887 , § 1571 ; R. S. 1899 , § 2988. ] 

 Evidence was required:

§ 3947. Corroborating evidence required . 

No decree of divorce, and of the nullity of a marriage, shall be made solely on the declara- tions , confessions or admissions of the parties , but the court shall in all cases require other evidence in its nature corroborative of such declarations , concessions or admissions . [ R. S. 1887 , § 1597 ; R. S. 1899 , § 3011. ] 

§ 3948. Proof of adultery insufficient when . 

In any action brought for divorce on the ground of adultery , although the fact of adultery be established , the court may deny a divorce in the following cases: 

First - When the offense shall appear to have been committed by the procurement , or with the connivance of the plaintiff . 

Second - When the offense charged shall have been forgiven by the injured party and such forgiveness shall be proved by express proof , or by the voluntary cohabitation of the parties with the knowledge of the offense . 

Third - When there shall have been no express forgiveness and no voluntary cohabitation of the parties but the action shall not have been brought within three years after discovery by the plaintiff of the of fense charged . [ R. S. 1887 , § 1598 ; R. S. 1899 , § 3012. ] 

Provisions were provided for to restrain and examine the husband during divorce proceedings, but not the wives.

Again, the old law here would work, or at least it would with modification. Would anyone be bold enough to suggest it be restored.

I doubt it, and therein lies an element of built in hypocrisy of the modern populist social warrior.  To really get at the core of this, you have to get to the core of it.  But hardly anyone is willing to even contemplate what that means.

Lubnau has pointed out that, at one time, the laws were much more restrictive in conservative Wyoming.  In the 1970s, the Republican Party, not the Democrats, radically liberalized them.  But not only did the US become much more liberal, all society did as well, for good or ill (probably mostly for ill).  Many of those who carry the banner for a return to what they regard as having been great aren't prepared to go back to what that really meant, but like Dr. Zhivago states in the novel, an operation cutting out corruption, if that's what you are really doing, is a deep operation.  

Put another way, you can't really address these social issues unless you are prepared to go to the very core of them, and that would mean addressing male/female, male/male, female/female "adult" relationships at their core.  The only thing that the populist far right is really willing to do is to address homosexuality in its various expressions. But that's relatively rare, and if you aren't willing to go further, and say that those relationships outside of marriage are wrong, and that you marry once and for life, well then, you really are just pointing fingers.

Our perfunctory favorite couples again.

Footnotes:

* This bill provides an example of  why the Wyoming Democrats go nowhere.  There's no reason for the Democratics here to be the party of death, like they insist on being elsewhere, and bills like this keep moderate Republicans who would cross over from doing so.  This is particularly the case as this bill stands less than 0 chance of being introduced.