THE MARRIAGE MUDDLE. Truth

NZ Truth, Issue 183, 19 December 1908, Page 4

THE MARRIAGE MUDDLE.

Truth

Published Eveey Saturday Morn,ing at Luke's lane (off mannebs- • stbeet), Wellington,.N.Z f. Subscription (m advance), 13s. PER ANNUM. .: ( j'. ' ■ - / SATURDAY, DECEMBER 19 , 1908,

Every divorce sittings of. the Supreme Court emphasises the imperfections of the (marriage institution. Adultery, cruelty, and desertion are" the chief causes of ihatr rimoriial misfits; arid, as the cofort is very particular, the circumstances have to be very; bad arid beyond all aoubt before release and relief are accorded. Therefore only the very worst instances of marriage failure come- under public notice. For every one which does a hundred don't. Most people prefer to suffer m silence for the sake of respectability. Some simply •grin and bear the faults of the erring wives or husbands, or go and do likewise. Others endure what they can't cure, either from lack' of evidence,of energy, of exchequer, or all three combined. It is certain that if divorce wore as easy as marriage, it would become quite as popular. But of course that is no argument m favor of facile divorce. On the contrary, it is an argument very, much against it. No one m his senses.; would argue that dying or being killedshould be made as easy a matter as being born. And there is practically the same difference between easy marriage and easy divorce, as there is between easy birth and easy murder. One is constructive, the other destructive. Upon marriage the whole fabric of human civilised society is based. And notwithstanding ali its faults, follies, and failures, the institution is one which the Government and the courts are bound to maintain at the highest possible standard. At the same time m the presence of so much | matrimonial misery, misf ortune and mis- | conduct, it is irdpossible riot to sbmetimes doubt whether the principles of modern marriage are thoroughly sound from a natural, scientific, 1 and moral standpoint. Does it exact too much from one side or .the other, from the man or from the woman? Would any less rigid and hard and fast condition of sex union not just as effectually secure the foundation of the family? These are questions of grave import. They embody problems which many thinkers have attempted to solve. And yet, m spite of all the wisdom expended upon these issues, we have not got beyond the crude old unsatisfactory divorce method of cutting the Gordian knot of marriage. * * I* The beginning and end of all the trouble is the compulsory monogamic condition of our marriage laws: Based mainly upon the Christian ideals, monogamy has after two thousand years become established as the foundation of marriage, and at the same time enthroned as almost a sacred doctrine. Yet it is glaringly and fundamentally false. It is contrary to all natural law, and imposed as it is coropulsorily upon hunian beings, it is prcv ductivc of wholesale immorality, hypocrisy and domestic unhappiness. LetourneaU, The French savant, m his work on the Evolution of Marriage, convincingly demonstrates that while woman is monogamous, man is polygamous. Therefore the Mormon or harem system is scientili cally justifiable. But, on the other hand these systems alre quite incompatible with the emancipation of -women. So humanity is placed upon the horns of a dilemma, for which divorce provides only a partial means of disentanglement. Indeed the situation seems to be becoming more complicated, as thought broadens and freedom expands. Men being polygamous by nature necessarily have the hardest part to play m the matrimonial partnership, if they have to remain faithful according to monogamous ideas. As a consequence they most often fail. What wonder is it that . women, the victims of these failures, should have. evinced a ten-.

dcncy to become polygamous by choice, to counteract the fact that man is polygamous by nature ! So we find a condition of tilings arising and increasing m which, m spite of marriage, men and women form immoral relationships, which are winked at as long as they; remain discreet. Long, long ago the French swallowed the lump m its matrimonial throat, and admitted the lover as a recognised appendage .of marriage. The English for a space, influenced by writers of the Grant Allen school, leaned towards a single standard of immorality for men and women. But the movement, was artificial, and got nowhere. It seems to be rather the national temperament of the Knglish to humbug themselves by a pretence of respectability, and disgust onlookers by their manifest hypocrisy. The ever-present and immovable obstacle to free and e a sy divorce is the family. Children have been happily described as "the garrison of the home." They certainly represent an unanswerable argument m favor of marriage stability, and against divorce m a free, easy and accessible manner. It has been seriouslj proposed to remove the difficulty by making all children wards of the State, and otfly a mere item of cash responsibility m the affairs of their fathers. Hut this would obviously -be to sacrifice the happiness of the children to the selfishness of the parents. Far better, it is argued m reply, for the parents to cultivate the self-sacrifice, control and efiacement which monogamous marriage demands than that family Ufe should be destroyed. The; solid and satisfying comforts of home life; even if systematic, and jpoiuitp'nous, are noi. idle make-believe or fictions in-* vented to bolster up the marriage institution. Anybody who has . experienced the horrors of a hash-house, or the mechanical discomforts of an ordinary hotel, can heartily endorse the old dictum that ' 'be it ever so humble there's no place like home." Not only that there is m the family influence an indefinable something which makes the best preparation for good citizenship. It is not only a basis of society, but also a binding cement. Without marriage, and monogamous marriage, the home and the family would be impossible. If, as may be m a large measure admitted, marriage can only' be maintained by a certain enttammeiiing qi human nature, we have to weigh, evil's against benefits, and 'decide whether the evils are worth enduring for the sake of the benefits. On the *whole, "Truth" would decide , that they are, /and ■■- that strictly administered divorce laws provide as adequate a mitigation , of the. evils as is humanly, practicable and pro6urable. It is not saying much. Bu^ human institutions are invariably imperfect, except perhaps m a state of savagery, where they, are so simple as hardly to be entitfled . to the name. If we are to tirelessly continue to evolve civilisation; out of chaps, we must be patient with such a business as • marriage, even to the extent sometimes of being inconsistent, illogical, or perhaps pardonably hypercriticafl. ' ■ ..■ ' The fact really is that monogamous marriage, like Christianity itself, represents an ; ideal too high for humanity at its present stage of development to reach. But there :isno . reason why it should be kept exalted beyond all reason. If marriage were regarded more as a matter of course, or even compulsion, and less as a matter of chance, and unforeseen circumstance, many of its unhappy: elements might disappear. Why should any woman carry the conceit that .she is condescending when she says "Yes !" to a man's proposal ?.-'- Why should any man imagine that he 1 is .conferring a favor when he asks a woman ito he bjs wife ? Mairiage should be regarded as the duty of every man and woman, as much as earning a living. The ancient .Athenians made it a law that every, woman should marry at 20 and every man at 30. Why should not such a law operate in 'this. country ?. The way .m which marriage is commonly regarded detracts greatly from its dignity and its utility. There could be no more .monstrous travesty l than a fashionable wedding? It is a parade of a natural function at once indelicate and unnecessary. Why should any fuss wiia.tever be made simply because a man and ( woman. have agreed to become husband and, wife. If so many artificial expectations were not raised by these proceedings, there would not be merely so many very real disappointments. . This setting up of marriage as an ideal state of bliss is a 1 mockery and a sickening sham. It is a confidence trick played .Upon people too young to know better, but who never cease to resent it when they have become old enough to find it out. The giving, of presents and general helping of a young couple to start house are more excusable customs, but even these niight disappear without being greatly missed. ''Truth" wants to see marriage brought down from the clouds of unreality, and placed upon the firm rocb of matter-of-fact. Let it be simply and plainly regarded, as the initiation of the family, which m its turn is the basis of society. Let « it be a working partnership,' with equal division of duties,' ' responsibilities, pleasures, and disabilities. Then there would not be so many miserable marriages, nor so, many occasions for dissolution by divorce. .