MARRIAGE VALIDATION.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIII, Issue 213, 5 September 1912, Page 9

MARRIAGE VALIDATION.

DECEASED WIFE'S NIECE. SEOO>T> REATHKO OX CASTING A _ OTE. (By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON"", Wednesday. In the House of Representatives to- i lav the second reading of the Marriages I Validation Bill was moved by Mr. McCallum (Wairau), who explained the provision briefly. The bill purposes to validate marriages between a man and liis deceased wife's niece, and between i, woman and her deceased husband's nophew, contracted .-fter April ii, 1006, and up to the comrnj* into operation of the Act. An Act was passed in 1305 validating sncli marriages contracted prior to April, 1906. The Hon. Mr. Allen expressed tho opinion that there were 'some serious objections to the hill. It was understood -when an Act was passed validating these marriages prior to WOti that that would lie the end of it, 'but now this bill came along, and if it were ■passed encouragement "would be {riven to the T>rin<rinfr of other measures to validate future similar marriages. 'lie considered they should consider very carefully before. validating marriages other than those legalised ■'by Church and custom. The more the marriage lair was altered the greater was the encouragement given to the contraction of illegal marriages in the hope of having them validated law. Mr. Isitt (ChTisfcchurch North.) considered that the objections to tie 'bill ■woTe purely ecclesiastical. He believed that the Church should do everything possible to prevent, the marriage of first cousins and of all those cursed with some mental or physical deficiency. He did not quarrel with any church for laying its embargo «p«in its own members, and in that respect he did not | consider the Ptate should attempt in any way to interfere vrith. the Ne' Teme.Te Decree of the Roman Cathnlics. ] ■■but obversely the Church had no right' to limit the abilities of the State, for ma-Triage in this country, it should 'be | remembered, vras a civil contract first and a reJi<rious one afterwards. Mr. Bell (Wellington Suburbs) oip>osed the bill on the ground that it fas abhorrent to him to consider the narrinpfe of a. man with whom he had ■>ro<)>aMy stood in the. relation of i laughter to 'himself and his •wife, .or if a -woman with a man who had pro>a*bly stood in the relation Of a son a> her husband and herself. Discussion on the 'bill for and against wa-f- continued till the supper adjourn•nent. when the division resulted in a lead heat, the ayes and noes each num-le-ring 20. Mr. SpeakeT, in giving his <!«tinsr rote with the ayes, explained that he 3id so because he considered that if it i «-ere lawful to nntrry a deceased wife's sister it should be equally lawful to marry as provided 'by the bill. The second reading was declared carried.