Wednesday, January 14, 1998

Marrying your abuser is no solution

By Bonnie Erbe

Law school long ago disabused me of the notion that all lawyers are sharp. Even worse, I count among my acquaintances several judges who are not that bright -- shattering yet another illusion that it takes brains to ascend to the peak of the legal profession.

But a recent news story cemented my belief that acute intelligence is not a pre-requisite to success in the law, despite the public perception that judges must possess at least a modicum of intellect and common sense.

A ruling from the Canton, Ga., courtroom of one Judge Clyde Gober is the source of my disquietude. Judge Gober actually ordered a man who threatened to kill his girlfriend and their daughter to marry the object of his threats.

The judge justified his ruling as follows in open court last month. He said he fashioned the order as part of Darrell Meadows' condition for parole so that Meadows would be legally required to support the 2-year-old girl he fathered with his girlfriend, Angela Whaley.

Even aside from the fact that it's highly questionable whether judges have the legal authority to force one individual to marry another, this is one of the more bizarre sentences on record. No doubt Judge Gober probably believes he is doing Whaley and her daughter, Nicole, a huge favor by requiring this union with a man who threatened to kill them both.

Whaley even told the judge this is what she wants. But he should have had better sense than to accede.

Most women know a death threat is not a sign of undying affection. It is more likely one of emotional disturbance. And any person attempting to tie her to this man for the rest of her life is not exactly in her corner. This is less a favor than a punishment. And so far as we know, Whaley did nothing deserving of sanction.

Several months ago I read a newspaper account of a cultural practice in a developing country that struck me as (a) highly injurious to women and (b) hugely self- defeating. The menfolk there, in defense of their female kin, force rapists to marry their victims when those victims suffer the dual misfortune of becoming pregnant.

The article went on to say the men think they are doing their female relatives a favor by making sure the children born of these sorry unions will not be bastards and by assuring financial support for the woman and child. But what usually ends up happening instead is that the newly-married woman is repeatedly raped and battered into submission.

Before the child is born, the "husband" takes off, financially and emotionally abandoning his "wife" and child forever. The well-intentioned men only make life more miserable, not less, for their female relatives. Judge Gober clearly never read this article.

One might or might not be shocked by such tactics in a country where women's rights are only slightly higher in the food chain than, say, chickens' rights. But here, where we are supposedly more sophisticated, the use of similar techniques is dismaying. Granted, Darrell Meadows did not rape Angela Whaley. But he did threaten to kill her. And to most people, that's hardly an inducement to marriage.

Women are not chattel, to be legally bound to abusive men for their own protection. Instead of "sentencing" them to marriage, Judge Gober should have sentenced Meadows to pay for daycare for his child and an education for Ms. Whaley. Maybe then she could become economically self-sufficient and find a man who would love her in a healthy fashion.

In his own defective way, Judge Gober thinks he's doing her a benefaction. Paternalism is never a favor. Perhaps they should start teaching that in law school.

Bonnie Erbe is host of the PBS program "To the Contrary." Her e-mail address is 102404,3317@CompuServe.com.

Scripps Howard News Service