Yes, he’s violent, but he’s just your ‘boyfriend’

If a man takes a gun, shoots, and kills a woman who he’s been in an relationship with, is the gunshot victim more, or less worthy of protection depending on if the two were married?

Really, it’s not a trick question. Logically, from an empathy standpoint, it should matter little if the two people have ever been married, or if they’ve ever lived together, or if they became parents.

But those are the standards in federal law. Right now, unless a convicted domestic abuser meets those measures, there is little that can be done to prevent them from owning or purchasing a firearm.

This is the “boyfriend loophole.” The law is declaring that only married women deserve protection from abusive partners. It’s a view steeped in outdated norms about the “sanctity” of marriage.

Consider that up until the 1970’s, many states had laws on the books preventing married men from being charged with raping their wives.

Everytown For Gun

Safety notes women are now as likely to be killed by someone they are dating, as they are by a spouse. And if a gun is present, other studies found women are five times more likely to die in a domestic violence incident.

Yet debate over the “boyfriend loophole” is part of a holdup that could sink a chance for significant bi-partisan gun safety reform.

A team of Democrats and Republicans continue to negotiate the details. And hope abounds that new legislation will pass into law, spurred by the horror over the deaths of 19 children and two teachers in Uvalde, Texas.

But the “boyfriend loophole” stands out as an easy change past due. This shouldn’t be a difficult expansion of current law. But the senators are hung up on how to define “boyfriend.” Targeted, prior violent behavior should be the focus, far more than some nebulous idea of what designates a “boyfriend.” If someone has been convicted of domestic violence, that should trigger deeper scrutiny and potentially a ban on that person purchasing firearms.

Here’s a roundtable idea: Envision forcing the senators to listen to women talk about dating, frank discussions about red flags ignored. Many women have been scared by someone they were dating. They see the jealous rages or experienced demeaning, gaslighting rants.

Often, these women thankfully move on, leaving the man in question who finds another potential victim. Such predators do not always marry their targets.

Ask any police officer. If something violent happens to a woman, one of the first questions asked is who’s in her circle? Is there an ex-boyfriend, a stalker, a jilted suitor, or a soonto-be divorced husband?

Change the pronouns around to imply a different set of partners, the issue is the same.

It’s strikingly easy to fall for cerebral speed bumps that shouldn’t exist. In her book, “The Way We Never Were; American Families And The Nostalgia Trap,” professor Stephanie Coontz writes: “The major journal of American family sociology did not carry a single article on family violence between 1939 and 1969. Wife battering was not even considered a “real” crime by most people.”

Psychiatrists at the time saw the abused wife as “a masochist who provoked her husband into beating her.” Politicians know there is momentum for significant gun reforms in the wake of the Texas school shooting. If they fail to pass them before the congressional recess on June 27, there is little chance they will pass later as the midterm elections near.

Here’s another helpful reminder: Women are more reliable voters than men. We’ll remember if this opportunity to value our lives is wasted.