The clamour for women to own property in their father’s house as captured and so titled, before the Rivers State House of Assembly is thought-provoking and a source of concern to objective minds.
In the Christian faith where marriage is adjudged sacrosanct and  is viewed from the perspective of God —the originator, the mere thought of giving right to own property to women in their father’s house without an objective and clear cut analysis on the category of women it is aimed at,  is to say the least very nauseating.
The reason is not far-fetched. Women by divine design are created for men to be married out of their families.
Adam and Eve’s relationship is a prototype of the ideal marriage where a couple in matrimonial alliance should engage in the life long relationship to the exclusion of all other humans, including father and mother of both parents “for better and for worse until death do us part”. The essence is to avoid all distractions capable of encumbering a seamless operation of the family.
Already, the family is  the most endangered  human institution because it is the prime target of the devil’s onslaught against humanity. It is instructive to state that aside salvation-for Christains indeed- the next thing that the devil is determined to destroy is the family.
That is why people should commit to strengthen the family and its values. A failed family will inevitably produce a failed society. Aside its veritable role as the primary agency of socialisation, the family is the heart beat of God designed to drive the Kingdom project of the Great Commission.
The feminist bill of giving right to a woman in her father’s house in a Christian context, seems to negate the concept of marriage in a subjective view as a Christian.
Without argument, every child, male or female deserves to be treated equally, and given rights due them. However the yearning for the recognition of women’s rights should be viewed beyond the protection of their right. Such demand can also  translate to apathy and failed marital relationship. Like the constitutional provision that gives equal rights to children born out of wedlock and products of marriage, is capable of promoting perversion of marriage and promiscuity so it is feared that the property right bill for women, is not without negative effects on families and society.
Agreed that “Change”, according to a philosopher, Permedis, “is the only thing that is permanent”. Life is not static, so the dynamics of life demands a corresponding response from society. If humans who are operators of the institutions of society must remain relevant, cultural values are not absolute. They are relative and subject to change where and when the people deem it necessary, provided such values do not have moral and ethical implications. And provided the change will not translate to infraction over time.
The bill on the right for women to own property in their father’s house appears to be good on face value if we will defined and the gray areas addressed.
However, if passed into law with the ambiguity that beclouds it, the law will have far reaching negative consequences on marriage, matrimonial families and the society.
The concept of marriage originated from God. And God designed that husband and wife relationship must be to the exclusion of all others devoid of any external influence and interferences.
To reinforce this truth the Bible states “….for this reason shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to the wife and both shall remain one”.
The concept of marriage is rooted in indivisibility. The husband and wife are seen as one indivisible entity, hence the subsequent injunction, “therefore, what God has joined together, no man should put asunder”
Biologically, every woman is born into a family but at marriage, a woman becomes a member of the family of the husband with complete right and privileges accruing to her.
The principle also applies in church membership. It is believed that a woman’s place of worship Is determined by the husband’s place of worship. So a woman does not have a permanent worship place until she is married.
The idea is to strengthen the marriage institution which is the bedrock and basic unit of any society.
The right to own private property is fundamental. And there is nothing wrong if a married woman jointly owns property with her husband. The husband and wife married according to custom and law (marriage statutes) are one and  joint ownership of property subsists even at the death of either spouse.
While it is necessary to protect women from abuses by some men who do not understand the value of a woman, the sponsor(s) of the bill on the right of women to own property in their father’s house should clearly define the category of women. Is it single women who of no fault of theirs are not married so elect to remain in their father’s house instead of living in pleasure and waywardness? Is it women who are divorced as a result of irreconcilable differences, so they chose to return to their father’s house? Or is it women who have  no male sibling to protect their father’s heritage at the event of death as was the case of Zelophadad’s daughters whose father had no male child so they demanded that their father should be given land. And God granted their request?
If these were the categories of women the bill seeks to protect, then it is welcome. But if it includes even the married women then the bill leaves much to be desired and a bad taste in the mouth.
This is because the bill negates the core concept of marriage of “exclusiveness for unity of the family”.
Married women should rather be encouraged to invest their time and resources in building their matrimonial homes.
Beyond the lofty and laudable ideas and vision of the sponsors, the bill if passed into law can divide or distract the attention of married women from their husband’s home, create a sense of disloyalty and lack of submission to their husband. Wife’s submission and husband’s love are key ingredients for a successful marriage.
The act is also likely  to  unintentionally and covertly advocate  for the Father’s House Option” or alternative in marriage. It gives the woman a soft landing to return to her father’s house just in case marriage failed.
This is potentially dangerous for a society that is fraught with several challenges of marriage including divorce, separation and uneasy calm.

By: Igbiki Benibo