MARRIAGE CHOICE

Greymouth Evening Star, 13 January 1928, Page 12

MARRIAGE CHOICE

UNION CONTROVERSY.

NEW YORK, December 1.

Companionate marriage! The old order changeth, but through the centuries there has always been one great exception —the sacrament of marriage; the corner-stone of our civilisation. Enters now the companionate, marriage; which, as the name implies, is a marriage without ties and without responsibility, from which either party is free to break away whenever he or she feels so inclined. Has this new order come to stay, or is it merely a. passing craze, the product of an age of super-excitement. Is it for good or ill? Does it imperil our civilisation or strengthen, it? Is it conducive to a happier matrimonial estate? For many years prominent social workers in America, whence of late many social reforms —and so-called reforms —have emanated, have been advocating the companionate marriage as an antidote for the poison of the unhappy marriages, that, according to divorce statistics, have been so rapidly increasing in number —increasing out of all proportion to the marriage rate. The companionate marriage has been advocated with even greater force as a basis on which men and women could be “happy though married” and incidentally solve the divorce problem. In the forefront of' the ranks of the advocates has been Judge Ben Lindsey, world famous children’s court judge in America. After years of argument on the theoretical side, the world will now follow with interest a concrete case. Early last month Aubrey C. Roselle, 20-year-old student at Kansas University and Josephine Haldeman-Julius, 18-vear-old .school girl and daughter of Mr E. Halderman-Julius, a millionaire Kansas publisher, entered on a companionate marriage with the full consent of their parents. The marriage has raised a stormy controversy throughout America, protests against the marriage being voiced from every corner of U.S.A., but the young couple : who have embarked on this unique experiment have been championed by ■ many deep thinkers in matters social. Companionate marriage differs from . the orthodox marriage, chiefly in that i it is not usually accompanied by bab- ! ies or by the wife depending upon her ■ husband, or by any dilties or obliga- > tions being imposed on either. Both ■ parties are free, though bound. There ■ is no control, except birth control, and : the tie that binds is a slipkn'ot so i loose that either one can walk out ■ when so inclined, and whenever ; either gets bored. The advantages claimed for the com- > panionate marriage are that it enables . boys and girls to marry young while > the mating instinct is strongest and s long before they, could marry if they • had to wait until they were able to ! support a family. It is argued also ’ that everybody would be happy ’ though married, for all would sooner ■ or later have husbands or wives that ■ nature destined for them.

WHOLEHEARTED DENUNCIATION. Miss Dorothy Dix, well-known American publicist, and feminist, is certainly not in favor of it. “It seems to me, she says, “that it is just a handful of dust thrown in the eyes of Mrs Grundy in the hope that it will blind her so that she will not see what a young couple are doing, and turn her back on them because of it.” It is taking out a temporary marriage license instead of a permanent one, and the license has a divorce coupon attached which gives the holder a cut-rate on divorce and makes it easy and cheap to get rid of a husband, or a wife, when a preferable somebody else turns up, or one finds that one doesn’t like being married anyway. It does away with all that until-dcath-do-us-part stuff that men and women useej. to swear at the altar, and makes marriage a petting party that lasts only as long as the husband and wife get a kick out of it. Miss Dix is nothing if not thorough and she goes on to say that it is an alluring theory, but for the life of her she cannot see where it solves any problem, or would add anything to the happiness of humanity. “To be sure it throws a cloak ot pseudo-respeotability about the companionship ot a man and woman who elect to live together for a limited period; but a scrap of paper and the mumbling of a few words cannot sanctify the marriage that is entered into only until passion shall have spent itself There is no morality in such a union. It is legalised prostitution. The woman who swaps husbands every time she desires a new thrill is no better than her sister of the street. A bitter and outspoken antagonist of the new idea, one whose denunciations are couched in words that, cannot possibly be misunderstood, is Dr William T. Manning, Episcopal Bishop of New York. He forcefully characterises companionate marriages as “shameful and damnable,” and continues. “It appears to me there is a group in the Church itself which holds that the Church might consider with open mind sanctioning fornication among our young people with the use of birth control to guard against the coming of children; that is in plain words what the high-sounding companionate marriage means. A trial marriage is nothing but a perfectly brazen proposal to sanction piostitution and legalise free love.” Such an expression of opinion, so forcefully couched, from so high an ecclesiastic must have its effect-.

FATHER GIVES HIS BLESSING. The father of the young lady believes that his daughter will be better off married tq Aubrey Roselle than if she pad to wait five or six years until finishing her schooling, and when the couple might be in a financial position to maintain a home, a view in which his wife and also the father and mother of Roselle concur, Mr Jplifis freedom from eoonopiio pesponHlbiHties as one of the biggest, factors in favor of the success of companionate marriage. Under the marriage neither of the young people have assumed the responsibility of the other. They do. amf will eome and sjo Web* a» they please, meeting in either of their parental homes, and attending their different schools. If the union proves a success and love continues between them an QrtVbavy marriage W otherwise a divpi’Gp wHi tho relfttion. In'the ease of children, the union is to be a “family marriage,” with the economic responsibility placed on the parents. Women; is wdbkWHh aw IU the great iuajoi’ijy'-5f instances, very reluctant tq liGGfiiit countenance anything that tiu-eateus fhe foundations of their well-being, but Mrs Julius is whole-, heartedly in favor of her s venture, She defends the eouipanlofl' atq marriage which she maintains is the opposite of a trial marriage, as being a state in which thousands of married couples in America are to V>Q found at the present day-“lieilher the bflsbnml llftl' b* 6 assuming f. inal }‘ dial responsibility for the other, it be-

ing particularly the case in The changed economic conditions are responsible is her opinion, and such conditions she considers form the an,-, swer to the questions of logical avfil thoughtful parents on the problem the marriages of boys and girls ‘‘Svho feel an emotional compulsion to marry and are really ready to do so long ht*. fore the boy is prepared —or be asked—Ao assume the burdeth earning a competent living.” The motto for compantonait® 1 riage (says one commentator) would appear to be: “It first you don’t, succeed, try, try again.” This view visualises a modern yeungf woiatva's progress through life as a path littered with broken wedding rings—symbols of the romances of a day on her never-ending search fo;e the ideal mate—or for a new thrilh