THE RUSH FOR DIVORCE.

Waipa Post, Volume XXIV, Issue 1416, 16 October 1923, Page 2

THE RUSH FOR DIVORCE.

OLD STANDARDS IN DANGER. (By S. Tung). Divorce in this Dominion is rapidly increasing. Of that there seems little doubt, for whereas ten years ago divorces were rare nowadays the average newspaper seldom gives more than a few lines to the lengthy crop of divorces at each session of the Supreme Court. Is this seeming relaxation of moral standards the fault of society or of the individual? Is it a matter to be righted by overhauling our marriage and divorce laws, or must we look to the churches and leaders of public opinion for a new inspiration for the individual? Ordinary people regard the home as the unit of the community and a disease which attacks the home is a menace to the whole nation. It is not only in New Zealand that the figures for divorce are mounting. It is a world-wide symptom of a community ill which has not yet been properly diagnosed. In America, on the Pacific Coast, the proportion of divorce figures indicates that one family in five has been affected by divorce. Even this enormous number is growing yearly. Only one State forbids divorce—the practically Catholic State of South Carolina. What tire the causes' of the rush of people to the Victorian courts to ask for disentanglement? Is divorce made too easy? Is the law of marriage to blame? Or marriage itself? Or is it just plain ordinary human nature fulfilling itself? The causes are of two kinds—psychological and physical

City Laxity. It may seem extravagant to many to say that when this Dominion began to take a hand in world business its domestic affairs were automatically threatened. Herein lies the psychological reason for our mounting divorce statistics. Put it this way. A little village is much more circumspect in its conduct than a cosmopolitan city. Jts life is lived by mutual respect, and a departure from the common village standard means social ostracism. Evil may be done, but it is shamefaced and secret. The big city makes for annonymity. Human nature may "have its fling" in comparative safety. In just such a way New Zealand has developed from the little group of parochial settlements where ,one man's business was everybody's into a community which sent hundreds of thousands of its yo'ung impressionable men away into the big world. They have come home with different ideas, prone to think old standards narrow. They have found, too, that divorce no longer carries with it averted faces and the "tut! tut!" of scandalised neighbours. It is so common thai it has lost its sting. No longer are unhappily married couples constrained to live together because they dare not face publicity. Everyone knows divorced people. Divorce is becoming commonplace, and so its very frequency increased the momentum of its increase. Wajr Bi'id€)sii A second reason for the greater number of divorces just now is that the statutory term set for desertion has expired in the case of scores of late or post-war marriages with English brides. It would surprise the general public to learn the number of wives in England who thought it romantic to be wooed by and to wed an Anzac soldier, but to whom the thought of coming out "to the bush" was abhorrent. Selfishly and coldly they have refused to live in Australia or New Zealand and their husbands have instituted proceedings for divorces which have been no small part of the lists for some months. In one list appeared two cases in which a couple of Australian brothers petitioned for dissolution of marriage with two English sisters, who refused to come out here. Romance has a pitifully short memory. A third potent cause of divorce is brutality, which divorce lawyers know has increased in volume and scope. Refinements of sexual brutality are known to be the root cause of many petitions by women. The question is often asked, "What is wrong with the laws relating to marriage?" The answer is that, apart from anomalies that spring from separate Acts, there is little in marriage legislation that affects the real position. Legislators lack the knowledge of psychology and obscure mental operations which alone might enable the law to hold a really even balance between the sexes. Easy Marriag'e. The real question appears to be: "What is wrong, not with marriage, but with some of the people who get married?" The world over marriage and its sanctity are the foundations of so-/ c'iety. Tinkering with marriage to gratify the self-indulgence of men and women is a dangerous pastime. The trouble lies, not in the institution of marriage, but with the viewpoint from which people approach it. Easy divorce 'and absence of re-

strictions on re-marriage appear to many to offer a premium to easy marriage. Here is a case which illustrates the light-hearted abandon with which, in a country of quick and easy dissolution, marriage may be approached. A young girl of IS, in New York, of good family and circumstances, discussing with me her approaching marriage to a wealthy elderly man, observed flippantly. "If I don't like it I can easily get a divorce, and, oh boy! the alimony cheques!" It is to the modern attitude to marriage that the full Divorce Court lists are due, and full lists in their turn intensify the modern attitude to marriage, a vicious and enlarging circle that legislation cannot touch except by restrictions on the freedom that successful divorce confers. Such is a general picture of the position in our own country with regard to divorce. The vexed questions of whether divorce is too easy in general and too hard in particular cases demand separate treatment, as also does the matter of legislation anomalies.