indeed she did-- about British gentry in the late 18th century. And this is somehow supposed to support your argument that... American women would not have benefited from marriage unless it was to a man before 2015?
Joint parenting rights, inheritance tax, joint filing (I.e., tax or bankruptcy), visitation, next-of-kin, custodial rights, transfer-of-property, spousal medical decisions, bereavement leave, the list is very long. These varied from state to state, but several date back even to the 18th century.
You asked that. But that's arbitrary in relation to our original topic of discussion, which was the
role of the Constitution in protecting peoples' rights and privileges.
You said the Constitution protected these rights even before Obergefell. When it was pointed out that the Constitution didn't protect same-sex marriage (even when challenged, the SCOTUS explicitly ruled it didn't!), your response was that same-sex marriage didn't have rights and privileges back then anyway.
So it's completely arbitrary for you to set 1850 or whatever as the date. My case is that the Constitution didn't protect those rights and privileges before Obergefell. So it's sufficient to prove 1) same sex marriage was disallowed before Obergefell (already proven); and 2) marital status conveyed rights and privileges
before Obergefell.