She calls up a local lawyer she finds in the phone book and says she wants to file for divorce. Hubby has assumed no such plan would ever work because he and his lawyers are so powerful in the legal community. She has no money, but he’s rich enough, so she figures her case is worth taking; but the real reason the lawyer takes her case is because it’s interesting.
They go through the usual divorce route in state court, but his powerful lawyers, with their connections all over the legal system, do a great job of stonewalling her. They use various tactics to create delays, stop the paperwork, and fight her pleadings on every possible level. Finally, it becomes obvious they are not going to get a divorce by the normal route. And why is he doing this? There could be many “reasons”—mainly, though, it’s because he is a control freak. It’s just the kind of guy he is. And to think, he seemed so charming.
Her lawyer, a young woman recently out of law school with training in civil rights issues, comes up with a novel legal theory. She brings a divorce suit in federal court based on the 13th Amendment, which prohibits slavery. They argue that the marriage contract (that is, the state marriage license), as written and as it’s being applied in this case, is equivalent to a form of illegal servitude and that her constitutional rights are being violated. This is laughed at by his lawyers and in the media—it’s considered a legal absurdity. Indeed, there is a vicious public backlash against their lawsuit.
To everyone’s surprise, however, the federal judge grants a trial—and then her divorce. He does nothing else; it’s all the relief they’ve asked for (she hasn’t even asked for alimony or damages; now it’s all strictly on principle). His lawyers, in response, rush into federal appellate court and manage to stay the decision; then they get it thrown out. Her undaunted young lawyer, in response, files with the United States Supreme Court, and after a long wait, with much attention, public abuse, and bantering on talk radio, they are granted certiorari: the Supreme Court will take their case.
Imagine the headlines in the New York Times: “Divorce Case Goes to Nation’s Highest Court.” Or the Wall Street Journal: “What Would Lincoln Say?” (Lincoln is credited with freeing the slaves; the 13th Amendment came later.)
In her filings before the Supreme Court, our young lawyer questions the validity of the marriage license itself. It seems to have a flaw—there is no exit clause. Driver’s licenses expire or can be revoked; medical licenses must be renewed; trademarks and patents expire. Marriage is unique among them.
She also proves that, structurally, it puts women at a disadvantage to the extent of negating her existence, and is therefore inherently unfair to one of the parties. She mentions that how the contract has been applied is equally meaningful as what the contract says. And she argues that in all 50 states, marriage contracts basically say the same thing: all of which violates the 13th Amendment because one person is, in effect, taking possession over another person.
The court hears arguments in a packed, dramatic scene. A couple of months later, a decision is published that dissolves the woman’s marriage and, in the same gesture, declares all marriage licenses unconstitutional. Basically, they are all found to be null and void, and one morning everyone in the United States and its territories wakes up legally single. Not divorced—annulled. They can stay in their relationships voluntarily, or walk out the door if they want.
Voluntary forms of relationship
The parody here, if it’s not obvious, is on the fact that we are not really free in our relationships; or, rather, we are rooked out of freedom in our relationships by a bunch of cultural requirements and expectations that are highly subject to abuse. It is no great wonder that we are indoctrinated into compulsory heterosexuality and compulsory monogamy as part of this process.
