The Social Relations of Divorce [pp. 352-355]

352 TIBE LADIES'
THE SOCIAL RELATIONS OF DIVORCE.
/ ARRIAGE is one of those divine ordinan V ces which is limited to no countryordispensation, which has most vital relations to the moral
and spiritual, and even immortal destinies of the
race, and is therefore properly subject to the
Divine will and law. But it is also an institution
having most intimate connection with the safety
and welfare of the state, and therefore must of
necessity be subject to control and regulationby
civil law. There are not very many who have
become so absurd as to suppose that an institution, so vitally related to the welfare of society,
can be left wholly to the will and caprice of individuals. There is, however, a very considerable
school of writers who maintain that it should be
"trammeled"' by as few laws as possible, and
that both entrance into the married state, and
exit from it, ought to be left as nearly as possible to the freedom of individuals; that it is a
mere civil and individual contract, and the
terms of the contract ought to be left to tlhe
parties themselves. Perhaps but few are willing
to state the theory so boldly as this, but this is
the ultimate meaning of much that is said of the
tyranny of marriage laws, and of the demands
for increased facilities for divorce.
While there is at present not much danger of
these extreme views obtaining very general
adoption, yet their influence is at this moment
very widely felt in American and English society.
They are depreciating the solemnity and sacredness of the marriage contract; they are
leading multitudes to look lightly on the force
and significance of the marriage vows; facilities afforded for obtaining release from these obligations, and familiarity with the frequency of
separations and divorces, are leading husbands
and wives, and even those contemplating marriage, to admit to themselves the practicability
of separation as a remedy for disappointment or
for domestic disagreement and hardship. While
multitudes would be startled at the announcement that marriage is to be left to the freedom
of individuals, and is to be without law, they are
not startled at the frequency and facility of divorce, which is silently undermining the foundations of the whole institution, and practically
reducing the marriage contract to one of convenience and pleasure, to be continued or discontinued at the will of the parties.
It is evident that an institution of such vital
relations can not be left without the restraints
and regulations of law. If there were no consequences of marriage, if it were only a matter
of convenience and pleasure between two individuals, the State could well enough afford to let
R.EPOSITOR r.
it alone. But marriage is the parent of families,
is the creator of nations, is the conservator of
morals and of patriotism, is the educator of citizens, and is in a thousand ways connected with
the safety and welfare of the subjects whom
government is bound to protect. It must therefore be regulated by law, and the question is
only how much and how far should the law interpose its guards and restraints. For ourself
we would answer this question by saying that,
of course, the more nearly civil law conforms to
the will and law of God in this case, the better
will the solemnity and sanctity of marriage be
maintained, the better will the purity and stability of society be preserved, and the better
will the interests of the married parties, of their
offspring, and of society at large be subserved.
The object of all laws of the State is the protection of its subjects, both individually and
collectively, and it is the duty of the State to
save its individual subjects from oppression,
from peculiar hardships even, so far as this can
be done without incurring risk of a greater evil
to her subjects collectively. Easy divorce might
often work admirably for a few individuals, but
facility-and frequency of divorce must work ruin
to society. The very least that civil law ought
to do in creating guards and restraints over this
institution may be arranged under the following
heads:
Ist. The State should aim in all laws, and all
its treatment of this great interest, to preserve
the solemnity and dignity of the estate of marriage. To this end the statute law should, as
far as practicable, prevent all hasty, secret, illegal, and irresponsible marriages. The State has
the right to know who and how many enter into
this relation, the age, and legal qualifications of
the parties. All marriages should take place
only under the license of the State. And yet
in many of our States there is almost absolutely
no law on the subject of entering into marriage.
In many places men and women, known and unknown, publicly and privately, at any hour of
the day or night, without signature, without witness, without identification, clandestinely or otiherwise, are allowed to enter into this state without let or hinderance. In other States, the whole
burden of ascertaining the marriageability of the
parties, and the respectability of the legality of
the marriage, is most absurdly thrown upon the
clergyman who performs the ceremony. Such
a state of things tends in advance to demoralize
society on this subject. The State gives it no
attention, does nothing to dignify and indicate
the true honor of marriage, does nothing to
identify the parties for the sake of the peace
and good order of the community. It gives the