Jonah wrote:One person feels that the quotations above indicate that, if a man isn't financially secure or doesn't have a job, then he shouldn't get married until he can afford to have a wife and family, whom he is obligated to support.
The following is not from the point of view of male vs. female roles, but it does indicate that economic factors can indeed possibly hinder (early) marriage:
"The Bahá'í youth should, on the one hand, be taught the lesson of self-control which, when exercised, undoubtedly has a salutary effect on the development, of character and of personality in general, and on the other should be advised, nay even encouraged, to contract marriage while still young and in full possession of their physical vigor. Economic factors, no doubt, are often a serious hindrance to early marriage, but in most cases are only an excuse, and as such should not be overstressed."
(On behalf of Shoghi Effendi, from a letter dated 13 December 1940, to an individual believer, in Messages from the Universal House of Justice 1963-86, sec. 126.7c, p. 234)
And there is the concept of the dowry where the Kitab-i-Aqdas prescribes a dowry (given by the man) before marriage.
This law is not applicable in the West, and there is admittedly at least a pilgrim's note of Shoghi Effendi indicating that some of the laws may never be applied in the West, a possibility which, if true, might
indicate the idea that some laws were indeed only intended to help the East "catch up" with the West on certain matters, e.g., if the dowry were meant to gradually minimize the preexisting practice (and the Writings do make abundantly clear that the Baha'i Revelation is not the final revelation, that religious truth is not absolute (fixed to one time), etc.). However, the infallible Universal House of Justice has already clarified on the matter of financial responsibility by saying that "the husband is responsible for the support of his wife and children so long as they are married".
Nevertheless, even the law of the dowry makes some provision for financial difficulty at the time of marriage (and the quotation above did indicate that financial reasons are often just an excuse):
"QUESTION: In connection with the dowry, what if the bridegroom cannot pay this sum in full, but instead were to formally deliver a promissory note to his bride at the time of the wedding ceremony, on the understanding that he will honour it when he is able to do so?
"ANSWER: Permission to adopt this practice hath been granted by the Source of Authority."
(Kitab-i-Aqdas, Questions and Answers, no. 39, p. 119)
Per the above balancing quotations, I think it is therefore upon the individuals to decide this for themselves.
Jonah wrote:Is it accurate, do you think, to consider the wife as having the "right" to financial support
Yes, I think this is quite clear from the quotations you cited earlier (including during any Year of Patience in the case of a separation).
Jonah wrote:and, if such finances are not forthcoming, can she use the Writings as the basis for rejecting marriage until the fiancé can commit to providing for her?
There may of course be some exceptions for those already married, such as if the husband has become ill or otherwise disabled (in such a case (or if a woman is left as a widow), the State is to assist). And in the case of divorce, the Baha'i Writings only require financial support of the wife during the Year of Patience, not afterward
(unless the law stipulates otherwise, and regardless, supporting the children does remain a firm obligation).
But a woman (or man) can use any basis she wishes (or none at all) for rejecting marriage or indicate whatever conditions she wishes (or even make a prenuptial agreement
Note that in the East, the engagement period is limited to 95 days, and even Western believers may be advised of the wisdom of gaining parental consent first to avoid potential "later embarrassment"*, so it seems it may also be desirable to avoid engagement before such matters are determined, but despite being "not always desirable" for engagements to be broken (and "should rarely occur"), it is permitted for Baha'is to break off engagements
"The Laws of the Kitab-i-Aqdas regarding the period of engagement have not been made applicable to believers in the West, and therefore there is no requirement that the parties to a marriage obtain consent of the parents before announcing their engagement. However, there is no objection to informing the believers that it would be wise for them to do so in order to avoid later embarrassment if consents are withheld."
(From a letter of the Universal House of Justice to the National Spiritual Assembly of Australia, January 17, 1971: Australian Bahá'í Bulletin, February 1971, No. 198, in Lights of Guidance, no. 1256)