DIVORCE.

Wanganui Chronicle, Issue 12856, 28 October 1912, Page 3

DIVORCE.

Mr. Herdman has brought in a Bill reducing some of the disabilities of the injured parties in divorce proceedings. If either spouse is in a lunatic asylum for a period of seven years, there is ground for divorce. Mi. Stathain objected to this "on moral grounds." F don't know what ho means by moral grounds. If a. woman is incurably insane, sho can ho no wife for any man. She is individually dead, and I know of no moral grounds on which a live man can bo tied to a corpse. Whenever any reform of tho marriage laws is introduced, wo havo some undistinguished members getting up and waving foolish-banners mado from tho very shoddy of morality.

Tho fact is that tho present restrictions of tho divorce-laws are abominably cruel in many ways. If people aro condemned to p. life of hell by reason of their marriage, their marriage should bo dissolved. In all such serious cases, tho contract should bo terminable by consent of both parties, as nil other civil contract?; aro termitiablo. People miserably mated had a reasonable chance of getting clear of each ohr>r awhile ago, but religions bodies pulled tho si rings and wo went back to barbarism. In other countries, or some of them, tho divorco laws are already much 7nore liberal than ours are. The causes for which divorco is granted in Bavaria in- j elude:—Adultery, malicious desertion, local desertion, condemnation to imprisonment for ten years, murderous attempt on partner or child, marked enmity, dislike, and aversion after separation has been tried. Among causes permittee 7in Belgium arc—outrageous ! conduct, ill-usage, grievous injury, unwavering and legal expression of parties that their common l-'fo is insupportable. Tn Denmark inonraMn insanity is an immediate ground for divorce, so is j pennl servitude for thron years. or sep- ■■ p. ration for the samo period. In Getma ny divorce is rrnnted. among other f.ill^. fr*r f?tVOT?f» i-notv +v, acfs of V!O----lfii»v* fjr I'ross nh'Ti-. dninfcrinncws or incurable oxtrfivJ»«i.iTTvi 'n^nnernblo aversion. In T?i"m-i;n +u-"i+oTiinp' lanfynnrrn i'r r> nrrnu"^ f^»- r7?»-/irce. and so their common ''^" 'r 'ii-'iTii/irfoHn [ fJovnn.. o-on<- co •*-«- oc-. 4-O orlmit change lof foKrri^-M ns i« •■•• ■"■* ' «v,^T>rr C!,,.,,,1_

incurablo disease, mutual aversion, drunkenness, violent temper. Archbishop Cranmer, who was the head and the beginning ot the English itelormAtion, was keenly set on broadening and liberalising the divorce laws; only insisting that the guilty party in a divorce for adultery should not bo permitted j to many again. T' t *

no tendency all ovet trie worm .- greater liberality. Men and women j everywhere are beginning to see that : them is no justification tor any now law ■ that compels men and women to live together when they should live apart. '. Tha divorce4aws as they stand condemn ; many women to a life of the most hide- ' ous connubial prostitution. People who : havo wrecked their lives by a bad mar- | riago should at least have an opportun- ' itv to try again.

But in our Parliament ?.ro several men ! earnest to talk utter twaddle whenever the matter of marriage is mentioned. When wo had a Bill awhile ago intru- | duced to permit the marriage of a man ! with his deceased wife's niece, -or a wo- ; man with ho?" deceased husband's nephew, various bucolic gentlemen pro- i tested in the name of morality. And so ' tho law must stand —the preposterous5 and ludicrous law that, while a mail may marry his deceased wife's sistor <m- '■ his first cousin, he may not marry his ! deceased wife's niece—between whom j and him thero is no trace of blood rela-! tionship. It seems to be perfectly im-! possible for men of a certain habit of i mind and prejudice to discuss these | questions soberly and cleanly. The j scruples of Roman Catholics, which are based in the tenets of their religion, must 'bo respected; but Roman Cath-1 olics are not concerned with tho civil I laws regarding divorce. Divorce laws J can have no concern for them, since they \ regard marriage as a sacrament, and the tio as invoilablo and permanent. But tbo civiJ law has nothing whatever to do with marriage as a sacrament. Th-nt is the point that must be kept in mind. The law cannot regard differences of purely religious opinion. Religious matters are for the churches; laws arc for tho state.