The Legal Identity of (this is the first article of o series on this subject-ed.) the Married Woman Women are becoming more and more concerned with their identities separate by clay latimer from the role-acting which has been im- posed on them in the post. Married women in particular ore becoming more cognizant of the diminution of their selves when they bind themselves in that contract pro- vided by the state to sanction cohabita- tion. It has been pointed out that Mary Jones, a real, single, living individual person becomes, by contracting to many John Doe according to the terms pre- scribed by louisiana, Mrs. John Doe, o legal appendage of John Doe. V\o'l,at many women do not realize is that marriage, ceremonious os it may be mode • to be, is only a contractual agreement with terms designated by the Civil Code of Louisiana, amended by vo~es and legislative acts of the state. Article 86 of the Civil Code states: The law considers marriage in no This Article demands some explication. not been overruled and is even more other view than as a civil contract. Primarily, I om struck by the subtle disparaging is that in Gahn v. Darby: tone of discrimination as it is purported in "The fact that the husband was poor, the choice of words; i.e., the woman is irascible, distant, and treated the wife This means that it has terms to which each bound whereas the man is less stringently harshly ... wa~ no ground for the wife's party must comply or suffer liability for 'Qbl'T9ed. Additionally, it infers that only refusal to accompany the husband to the breach of contract. Mo~e directly, it ~d is capable of "providing" and new abode ... " (36Lo. Am. 70) means that it confers certain obligations and responsibilities on the contracting even there his duty to do so is limited, not by his wife's wonts oncVor expecta- Article 120, designating the husband parties; and most important, it means that tions, but by his own "means and condi- as the provider and restricting the wife's it imposes specific restrictions and pro- tion." It is because of this fallacious freedom of mobility, is only the first hibitions on the party legally termed the concept of the husband as the provider of many of the terms of the civil contract "wife". that women, married and single, hove of marriage. Its effects are inconsequent- been deprived of the educational and ial in comparison to additional terms The Civil Code prescribes certain pro- career opportunities many o£ them deserve. expreised in later Articles of the Civil cedures and forms to be acknowledged in But here, I cannot fix the blame on mole Code. But, though this porticular:--- order for the contract to be valid by its employers anymore than on those wives Article has not been repealed or amended, making. These are pretty standard speci- who hove helped perpetrate the fallacy there ore other areas in which relatively fications as to how licenses may be by allowing themselves to be provided for. recent legislation has loosened some of obtained, v.ho may solemnize the contract, the shackles fixed by the original what witnesses must be present, etc. It So, by the terms of the marriage contract Articles of the Civil Code. Married also prescribes how the marriage contract as prescribed by the Civil Code of women hove progressecrsomewhot in may be dissolved. Most specifically, Louisiana, the husbond'li'OS'Oduty to pro- Louisiana, especially in rheir capacity however, we ore concerned with the vide, and in reciprocity for this foo.:l and to make contracts and to appear in court designation in the Code of "The legal without their husbands' consents. There effects and consequenGes of marriage." board he receives the privilege of ore now more available avenues by which (Art. 87) As we will see, the brunt of selecting the place of boarding. Article 38 of the Civil Code states: "The they may, with extended effort and some these effects and consequences fall upon legal implementation, establish their own the wife. In Title IV (Of Husband and domicile of each citizen is in the parish individual identities. Wife), Chapter 5, "Of The Respective wherein he has his principle establishment Rights and Duties of Married Pe;sons," . " but apparently citizenship is a we begin to realize that the rights refer- more exclusive categorization thon we red to ore generally those oftheh'Usband suspected because Article 39 ~totes: 11 A and the duties ore those of the wife. married woman has no other domicile than NotwithStOiiding Article 119 which states: that of her husband .... 11 The contra- "The husband and wife owe to each other diction here seems inexplicable. Certain- mutually, fidelity, support, and assist- ly women ore citizens, but perhops, as in ance," the Code also 5tates in the Orwell's philosophy, some people ore three marriages six children Article following (120): more citizens than others. too busy to look where I'm going The most recent court decision regarding Today I wont "The wife is bound to live with her rainbow-:; husband and to follow him wherever this issue of domicile is Howell v. Kretz cheeseberries he chooses to reside; the husband (1931) in v.hich the court reiterated: "The purple onion cookies is obliged to receive her and to wife is bound (that word again) to follow furnish her with V.:hatever is required her husband wherever he chooses to Movement Two for the convenience of life, in reside." (131So. 204) by Sheila Hope Jurnok proportioo to his means and condi- An eorlie1 deci~ion 18-84) which has tion."