UNHAPPY MARRIAGES

Waipa Post, Volume 32, Issue 1778, 3 July 1926, Page 6

UNHAPPY MARRIAGES

“If a girl in good faith vows lifelong fidelity to a man, believing him to be Avorthy of it, and he turns out to be a brute, must she, because of her vows, continue to live Avith him, submit to the cruelties and indignities which he can heap upon her?” says the Rev. G. A. Studdert Kennedy in the Churchman.

“That is unthinkable! It Avould be pure Avickedness to demand it. Bu,t there are many such cases. What is to be done? Well, the difficulty really arises because of the Aveakness of the (Church. It is true that the State cannot absolve from a vow, but, under conditions, the Church can and should.

“Only people who Avere bona fide members of the Christian Church, and acknoAvledging themselves so to be, should take the Christian marriage vows, and that for them there should be some Christian court of assembly before which they could lay bare their trouble, and to Avhose direction and ruling they should be ready to submit themselves,” is the suggestion Mr 'Studdert Kennedy makes later.

"This assembly would, it seems to me, be able to deal with the cases submitted to it, not as lawyers, but as spiritual guides and doctors, looking upon the tAvo persons as souls and personalities infinitely precious.

“They Avould have power, not to divorce, but, under certain circumstances, to declare a marriage null and void, because it Avas based upon what amounted to a deception of either one party or the other. Over this assembly the finest and most spiritually minded men we can find, and some equally fine Avomen, should preside.

“It is an outrage upon decency, and a form of torture, that the present divorce courts should be the only place Avhere men and Avomen can bring the tragedy of their lives. There ought to be some place Avhere a moral and, not merely a legal decision on the merits of the case can be sought and obtained.

“It is obvious, if Christian marriage is to be upheld, that Christians must take much more trouble about it than they do at present, and must make it much clearer than they have done for many years that a voav is different from a civil contract.”