THE MARRIAGE ACT

New Zealand Tablet, 23 September 1920, Page 23

THE MARRIAGE ACT

BISHOP RICHARDS DEFINES THE ANGLICAN ATTITUDE. In a lengthy discourse on the Marriage law his Lordship Bishop Richards, at the Anglican Cathedral, Dunedin, on last Sunday evening, spoke, in part, as follows: — , .-,,(• „ ™,,;i If persons are content to be married before a civil registrar or before anyone else, we should be the last to interfere with their own choice in this respect ; we should not wish to take from anyone the freedom which we claim for ourselves. Nor should we say for one moment that such persons are not legally married and it would be entirely against our conscience. to brand their children as illegitimate. But are they truly and sufficiently married? If by this is meant, Are they truly and sufficiently married according to New Zealand law? the answer must be "Yes"; although according to English law it might be doubtful, a decision in 1889 laying down the principle that a marriage was not valid which was not upon a Christian basis (Canon Law, by Reichel, vol. 1., p. 353). But, be this as it may, we have no intention of saying that, people married before a registrar are not truly and sufficiently married according to New Zealand law. If, on the other hand, we are asked if they are truly and sufficiently married -according to the Church, then, since they have intended it only as a legal contract, and since they have not sought the spiritual benediction through the Church, the answer must be "No." The words, then, as they stand in the said amendment, are ambiguous, and, although on reading them at first it seemed to me that the words "truly and sufficiently married" were intended to refer only to the legal aspect of it, yet, according to the interpretation given by so eminent a lawyer as Sir John Findlay, the words may refer to the teaching of the Church, and it may be made an offence at law for anyone to say that persons who are married before the civil registrar are not truly and sufficiently married according to the Church and in the sight of God. We are indebted to Archbishop O'Shea, of Wellington, for bringing this matter to the light of day, and I gladly acknowledge our indebtedness to him for doing so. For, indeed, a great principle is at stake, serious enough in the present instance, but more farreaching in its effects, threatening, in fact, the civil and religious liberty of everybody in New Zealand. What is this principle? It is this If in the case of marriage we may not criticise a law and its effects when once the Parliament has enacted it, then the same may be said of any law whatsoever. Moral questions of any kind may be involved; the liberty of whole sections of the community may be at stake ; but only let the Parliament of New Zealand legislate upon such questions, and immediately they are sacrosanct: anyone will be liable to be fined or imprisoned if either openly or by implication he presume to criticise such legislation or to call it in question. In such circumstances Our Lord Himself would be imprisoned for giving His teaching on marriage and divorce. We should be imprisoned for following in His steps.

*: It may be said that it is not . the intention of the Government ,to legislate in such a way as this. And I am ready to believe it. But the effect of a law is not determined by the intention of those who framed it. It is the actual meaning of the law as interpreted by the courts,"that really counts, and in this present instance the considered opinion of an eminent lawyer cannot lightly be set aside. . If, on the other hand, as has been hinted, it is the deliberate intention of the Government to provoke a conflict with the Church, then we accept the challenge. A sacred trust has been committed to our keeping, and' I pray that no fear of consequences may ever cause me to betray the trust and to shrink from giving free utterance to those moral and spiritual truths which are bound up with the life and teaching of Our Lord. It may be that matters will be carried to extremes, and that some of the bishops may find themselves in prison. Well, in this case we should thank God that we were allowed to suffer for His Name. We should thank God if by this means the consciences of men were aroused to the seriousness of the issues which are at stake. Already the purely material teaching of marriage is bearing fruit. -Already the purity of family life is being increasingly defined sexual sin is lightly regarded ; a flood of immorality is let loose throughout the land, bringing in corruption, weakening the manhood of our race, threatening disaster. O New Zealand, called at times God’s Own Country, yet the scene of the devil’s deceits and human lust! May the hearts of thy children be brought back by the Divine compassion to things that are spiritual and true and pure! May thy laws be amended according to the law of Christ. May His love prevail; His will —may it reign supreme!

THE FALL OF THE JEWS. Speaking to a reporter (says the Evening Post, Wellington, of Thursday, September 16) with reference to the proposed amendment of the Marriage Act, the Rev. H. Van Staveren, Jewish Rabbi in Wellington, thus expressed the attitude of the Jewish community : —"Wherever we are we acknowledge the laws of the land that gives us shelter, and I don't propose to make any statement. The law of the land of our adoption is our law. Our law distinctly says that the law of the country is our law, and gomes first. We have nothing to say about the proposed amendment to the Marriage Act. We must abide by the laws of the country in which we —religion is a secondary consideration in matters of State."