Assuming a context in which same-sex marriages are legal, I do not believe that the courts would be more likely to recognize marital rape. Hasday compares the 19th century women's movement with modern day movements and says that in the 19th century the fact that marital rape did cause harm to wives. However, in todays era, that harm is unacknowledged. This harm can not be confronted because we our supposed to be a country based on equality especially women's equality and uncovering the harm that is caused would also uncover the still existing inequalities. In a same-sex marriage, which is also supposedly based on equality, would even more so be subjected to keeping the harm that comes from marital rape hidden. The biggest key to keeping marital rape under the radar and especially applicable to same-sex marriages, is gender neutral rhetoric. Rewording the marital rape exempt laws to be gender neutral in language can, especially for same-sex marriages, be even more restricting as to where the law should intervene. Gender neutral laws tend to view men and women as the 'same' and as having interchangeable roles. This view gives courts the ability to assume less responsibility of the husband and disregard that men and women are different and are given different societal roles. In same-sex marriages, this neutrality could be even more unhelpful because the 'interchangable' roles that were presumed before are now strengthened by the fact that two women or two men are presented. Regardless of the intent of being gender neutral, laws rarely are, and since the neutral rhetoric lessened the perceived responsibility of the husband, chances are there will be even less responsibility given to either spouse in a same-sex marriage as there really will be no outward, or societal, differences because of gender. Also, courts generally have an interest in keeping the private 'private' which tends to allow inequalities and harm to continue. Hasday says that men who rape their wives permit a legal system that allows them to avoid prosecution so that they can reconcile wiht their wife later, in private. The state, in what it does not represent, protects itself in such a way that the negatives of these institutions, ie. reality, are not seen. I believe that privatizing same-sex marriages in the same way that heterosexual marriages are, detracts rights away from those individuals. In doing so, the courts can make an attempt to keep same-sex marriage out of the public eye so to speak. Also, much of the arguments proposed surround the wife, the women's right to have control of her own body and self. Women are portrayed as needing protection, both from their husbands and the state. The root of the problem is viewed as the sexual subordination that women are subjected to by men. In a same-sex marriage then, there would be no grounds for claiming inequality. Hasday references reformers that build off of the argument that women naturally have less sex drive as opposed to men who then need to be controlled. Again, this would be an issue in same-sex marriage rulings because it would further reinforce the assumption that husband and wife shared the same beliefs and wishes. The couple then being of the same sex, would even further demonstrate this concept. In conclusion, I believe that marital rape within a same-sex marriage would be viewed no different than, and probably less seriously, marital rape in a heterosexual marriage. Both the gender specific outlook and gender neutral laws have the potential and probability to backfire on marital rape in same-sex marriages. Also, as has thus far negatively impacted, or just confused, marital rape law; gender neutral wording would expound within the context of same-sex marriages. This would be a further detriment to the status and outcomes of marital rape exempt law in heterosexual marriages now by furthering the notion that gender does not come with context. Ignoring context with gender leaves us all looking equal. This percieved equality allows the state to step back and define these matters as 'private'. If we are equal, have interchangeable roles, and as a part of marriage share the same values; there is no need for the protection the law could provide.