MARRIAGE VOWS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LVI, 29 December 1924, Page 8

MARRIAGE VOWS

SHOULD BRIDES PROMISE TO OBEY

DECISION OF THE HOUSE OF CLERGY

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 in Auckland, says the correspondent of the Otago Times. “I should have thought that the House of Clergy would have shown a more progressive spirit/'’ remarked a wellknown Anglican clergyman when interviewed, ‘‘but there are 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 the 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 days of the Christian Church. It is taken, in substance from the office in tho ‘manual book setting, forth the special unices of the Church long before the Reformation. There! has been no change in the service since 1949, save of a minor nature. Many of 1 us would personally prefer that the promise to obey should be 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 were always under some form of guardianship irrespective of age’ and the consent of a parent or guardian was therefore essential. No such, requirement was amide with regard to men unless 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 question, but 1 suppose the bridegroom knows just about how much we mean it. If he doesn’t lie’soon finds out, ’ ’

This view was; supported from a slightly different angle by a ' mail 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. Women do not mind promising anything before, they were married n

Another young lady had much moro definite views on the subject. “A stupid, meaningless form of promise that should not find a place in our modern marriage service,” she said. “Tlie whole foundation of , a happy marriage, nowadays lies not in the subordination of woman, 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 vvlhen thousands 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 bis wife and family? Of course, women know the words really do not signify, but where is the use of retaining the letter when the spirit of the promise lias departed? It is nothing but a mockery, which the Church would have done well to abolish.” But Princess Mary insisted on the words being retained in her own wedding ceremony, this critid was reminded, even although other portions were deleted. “Princesses have set good examples,” was the reply. “In private life, 1 dare say Viscountess Lascelles has her own opinions with regard to obeying her husband, just the same as a million other women have.” ■ At least one religious organisation has bad the temerity to declare for matrimonial equality. ■ There is no “obey” in the Salvation Army’s marriage vows, but, for all that, she is without doubt ns subservient to the wishes of her husband as any bride who has registered her formal promise of obedience. ,