THE MARRIAGE TIE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 20057, 21 September 1920, Page 6

THE MARRIAGE TIE.

“ EASILY knit, EASILY BROKEN.” Dealing with adverse criticisms of Sh “?• G , h A Sis ’ b . efore the Workers’ Bducational Association last night, Professor J. Shelley vigorously attacked marriages between persons who are unprepared for marriage. He also attacked the Churches for bringing about these marriages. i } e 7 as , l ; c^ r 'lig I ig at the time to lbsen a dreadful descriptions of the results of a husband contracting a loathsome disease. Two young people,” he said, see each for the first time, in a drawing-room, or in the exciting and artificial conditions of a ballroom. They do not see each other in the kitchen, in a short time they are married. Marriages of that character have the natural result. If you don’t have preparation for marriage you cannot have a real lasting marriage. The Churches winch say ‘You shall not widen the divorce laws ’ are responsible for tying people together. Tho person who marries them in a church is the person who is responsible if the marriages turn out failures. You would not engage persons for several months’ ordinary labour without credentials. But here the men who are responsible personally, at least, for their Churches make contracts that have to last for life, and all they want to know is if the parties have lived in a certain area and, if so, for how long.” ‘‘lt is nonsense, sheer, utter nonsense,” ho continued. “ The Churches cannot have it both ways. They must say that persons who are so easily knit together shall be just easily broken apart, or that they shall be properly prepared for man 'age. They must see that people who wish to marry know each other, and know the nature 0 f tho persons they will marry. If they do that, the divorce laws will largely disappear. It must bo acknowledged that the Churches seem to be Lying to show that they don’t care a hang how loosely the real knot is tied. They must see that proper preparations are made for marriage, or stop their opposition to tho divorce laws. Their present position is altogether illogical.” “ I’m a Churchman, and I f ce l strongly about it,” Professor Shelley concluded.