At one time, as we all know, women were expected to be homemakers. A SCOTUS case in 1873 demonstrates this. In a concurring opinion that ruled women could not be granted admission to a Bar Association, Justice Bradley wrote the following:
Bradwell v. Illinois
"...the civil law, as well as nature herself, has always recognized a wide difference in the respective spheres and destinies of man and woman. Man is, or should be, woman's protector and defender. The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life. The constitution of the family organization, which is founded in the divine ordinance, as well as in the nature of things, indicates the domestic sphere as that which properly belongs to the domain and functions of womanhood. The harmony, not to say identity, of interest and views which belong, or should belong, to the family institution is repugnant to the idea of a woman adopting a distinct and independent career from that of her husband"
"The paramount destiny and mission of women are to fulfill the noble and benign offices of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator.”
Is this comparable to the ill-treatment of people based on sexuality or ethnicity in regard to law? Can we expect the treatment of people based on sexuality and ethnicity to get better as it did for women?
BRADWELL V. THE STATE, 83 U. S. 130 (1872) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
:
Linear Mode
Main
Extras
