The Star. SATURDAY, OCTOBER. 30, 1920. THE MARRIAGE LAW.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16261, 30 October 1920, Page 10

The Star. SATURDAY, OCTOBER. 30, 1920. THE MARRIAGE LAW.

The progress of the Marriage Act Amendment Bill is being watched with very great interest by the public. The Bill originated in the Legislative Council, and from that Chamber has been eent pn to the House—an infrequent • but not unique reversion of the ordinary procedure, Tho measure is generally regarded as one primarily directed against’ the Roman Catholic Church, which has very decided views on what it describ**' as the sacrament of marriage. This popular impression is confirmed by the activity which has» been displayed in supporting the Bill by the Rot Howard Elliott, tho organiser of tho Protestant Political Association. The right of any party or, person to raise the question of tho sufficiency of the marriage law cannol be disputed, and if it is successfully shown that an injustice is being perpetrated or a wrong inflicted Parliament should not hesitate to act. Tho questions which arise out of the current controversy are: Has it been shown that tho existing law is defective in regard to the legal sufficiency of the State marriage contract, and does any Church, Protestant or Roman Catholic, impugn tho legal validity of marriages performed according to lawP We think that both these questions must be answered in the. negative. • People who'have been wedded according to, the law of the land enjoy the comforting knowledge that no Church in the world can challenge tho validity of their marriage. Whatever religious ceremony may have been performed, tho civil element i s the paramount consideration when the question of validity is under discussion. The priests and ministers of churches arp licensed to solemnise marriages, but they are bound to comply with the requirements of tho law of tho State. Each church incorporates in the marriage’ service its own peculiar ritual or ceremony, which does not affect tho legal sufficiency or validity of the contract. Whatever the religious ceremony the contract has to bo made in terms which satisfy the civil law. The churches attach varying degrees of importance to the religious ceremony, and some ’claim tho right to discipline their members if such a course is deemed necessary. Tho Roman Catholic Church does place very great importance on the religious service, and it holds very firmly that certain marriages are not canonically valid; The Church contends, and we think fairly, that canonical validity is a matter of church discipline, and that it has a right to impress its discipline on its members, That discipline, it may reasonably be presumed, is genet - ally administered with tact and discretion, and it can only b© administered while the disciplined person Is a consenting party to its reception. It has been claimed that the Roman Catholic Church impugns the civil validity of certain marriages, but that is’ specifically denied by very weighty authorities, whose voices should be listened to with respect. We do not think that what has been called the right of private remonstrance can he denied to any church which may hold that certain of its members have violated its rujes or doctrine in regard to marriage. * It is a right which is claimed by churches other than tho Roman Catholic. The civil validity of a marriage which is properly performed according to the law of the land cannot he impugned and any church which attempted to impugn it would simply be laughed out of court by intelligent people. The existing law has stood the test of years of practice, and experience has shown that it does not require any buttressing. Tile paramouutcy of tho civil contract is most definitely established, and submission to the discipline of any church is purely;, the concern of tno individual and the church. Ths. proposed amendment of the law has excised mlicli more unhealthy interest than is desirable, and we are in full sympathy with those who deprecate the Bill as an invasion of established religious liberty.