"WHOM GOD HATH JOINED."

Observer, Volume XLI, Issue 13, 27 November 1920, Page 2

"WHOM GOD HATH JOINED."

The Yearly Sermon. "OEGENTLY stated that "divorce - : is a symptom of decadence." There is plenty. , 'of it in New Zealand. But people will still get married.. Of course, because there is divorce there is to be a "campaign against divorce." There might also be a campaign against the incoming tide—it would be equally effective. It is a curious distortion of idea that a man and woman unhappily mated should remain in marital misery because some people regard severance as. sinful. It is hardly conducive to the cessation of decadence to insist that a /Hja-n or woman who is by the laws of nature "married" to some one else other than a husband or wilx 1 , should persist in immorality on ilio ground that divorce is wrong. The State'recognises two great reasons for the granting of divorce—immorality and desertion. The abolition of divorce would therefore increase immorality and desertion.

The State quite rightly gives facilities tor severance of marital ?u----lationship because incompatibte and unhappy marriage* are bad for the State, bad for those who are incompatible, and bad for the children —if there are children. The Church, having solemnised a contract between a man and woman, may feel that such a contract shall not be. nullified by the State (which gives the Church the license to make it)v

But no Church in its heart of hearts can possibly hold that a man and woman should remain legally joined when he or she hates and despises the other, or has selected some unauthorised mate. The "decadence" is probably, not decay. Va.t all. Divorce has been made easier 4 . Therefore it has prevented much misery and much unlawful license. ',

Humanity hasn't changed, but humanity has decided that it is cruel and perfectly unnatural for a man and woman to remain married if they are agreed that they don't want to be. The people who • are hurt s ajt. jthe,<Jncrea.sei*in divorce will believe that it is impossible to foresee incompatibility. -. ; •

It would be impossible for a Board of stainless men or women to eeflect a wife for a man or a husband for a woman, and declare that they would be compatible "till death do us part." No sneer at the great sacrament of marriage is tolerable. It is the most serious subject on which "one may talk or write, but it is quite illogical to declare that humanity is in a state of decadence because facilities have been granted to undo unsuitable bonds. - • • It is for the good of the nation— any nation—that unsuitable marriages be dissolved as soon as possible, for the reasons for dissolution are always the same —desire for another. You- can't cure these "laches" by sermons, or campaigns, or by any other means. If you want perfect weddings you must arrange perfection before wedding—and this no man can do. * * * The large number of divorces that are granted mean that the action of the Court has stopped the immorality which is the basis of the actions, for the State does not regard marriage as a religious ceremony, but as a civil contract, binding until it is formally dissolved. If divorce between people unhappily wed is wrong, then the means for effecting it are wrong—the law is wicked, and the Judge sitting in divorce is wicked. » * » In reality, the law is highly benevolent and highly mora|/ The man who objects to the divorce of unsuitable couples fortifies himself with the direction, "Whom God hath joined, let no man put asunder," '"but it is possible it was never intended that any two people should live in misery with each other—and in sin with someone else.

In these discussions about the sinfulness of divorce, the .people who discuss them do not get down to ■■first causes. They always mistake instinct for sin, and call disobedience to law "decadence." There are natural laws as well as manmade law, although to follow any natural law of sex is anathepaa. to so many. It is to be sincerely hoped that wherever there be men and women joined in misery the State, in its benevolence, will set them free from misery and immorality—for in the wiping-out of either tfiere is no "decadence."