MARRIAGE VOWS

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 13 December 1924, Page 7

MARRIAGE VOWS

SHOULD BRIDES PROMISE TO OBEY? AUCKLAND, Dec. 8. The decision of the House of Clergy of the Church of England Assembly that the word “obey’’ shall be retained in the, marriage. service has not been favourably received here. “I should have thought that the House of Clergy would have .shown a more progressive spirit,” remarked a well-known Anglican clergyman when interviewed, “but there di\o some to whom a change of any kind is abhorrent. It is not that they think that an old custom is necessarily right. They simply go on the principle that having been sanctioned by long usage, it should be retained in the present case. The bride’s promise to obey has been part of the marriage service from the earliest ;f( days of the Christian Church. It is taken in substance from the office in the manual book setting forth the special offices of the Church long before the Reformation. There has been no change in the service since 1549, save of a. minor nature. Many of us would personally prefer that the promise to obey should lie deleted, but no- alteration can be made save by the authorities in England-’ The same applies to the custom of giving a woman away at a wedding. Under ancient law, women are always under some form of guardianship, irrespective of age, and the consent of a. parent or guardian was therefore essential. No such requirement was made with regard to men qnless they were under age.” “Not that it really makes any difference," declared one young matron. “We may say ‘I do’ when the minister asks the questiop, but I suppose the bridegroom, knows just how much we mean it. If he doesn’t lie soon finds out.”

This view was supported from a slightly different angle by a man who was approached for his views on the matter.' “Well, it is really a question for the ladies,” he said. “I asked my wife yesterday what she thought about the promise to obey .when she agreed to marry me. She said she did not mind in the least, W r omen did not mind promising anything before they were married.”

Another young lady had much more definite views on the', subject. “A stupid, meaningless form of promise that should not find a place in our modern jnarriage service,’’ she said. “The whole foundation of a happy marriage nowadays lies not in the subordination of* women, that phrase so dearly loved by the Fathers of the Church, but in co-operation between husband and wife in comradeship and interests. In an age when husbands of women have to act the part of breadwinner, where is the sense of talking of a woman’s obedience to a man incapable of providing even the necessaries of life for his wife and family? Qf course, women know the words do not really signify, but where is the use of retaining the letter when the spirit of the promise has departed? It is nothing hut a mockery, which the Church would haye done'well to. abolish.”

But Princess Mary insisted on the words Being retained in lier own wedding ceremony, this critic was relhinded. even although other portions were deleted. '

“Princesses have to set good examples,” was the reply. “In private life, I dare say. Viscountess Lascelles has her own coin ions with regard to obeying her husband, just the same as a piillion other women have.”

At least one religoiis organisation has the temerity to declare for matrimonial equality. There is no “obey” in the Salvation ArmvV marriage vows, hut, for all that, she is without doubt as 'subservient to the wishes of her husband as any bride who’has registered her formal promise of obedience.