THE RECENT AMENDMENT IN THE MARRIAGE LAW

New Zealand Tablet, 18 November 1920, Page 21

THE RECENT AMENDMENT IN THE MARRIAGE LAW

VIEWS OF MR. L. M. ISITT, M.P. “I think that there still remains the chance of Mr. Massey’s common sense intervening between the Churches and ‘the shrewdest knock’that has threatened them during my 40 odd years in this Dominion,” said Mr. L. M. Isitt, 51. P., to a New Zealand Times representative the other day, discussing tho recent amendment to the marriage law. “If I was a materialist, I should be rejoicing to-day in the prospect of a not-distant crippling of religions influence that will be bound to tell very heavily against the religions life of the community.” “The Government,” added Mr. Isitt, -“while protesting that sub-clause la of the new clause 6 docs : not go beyond penalising the person who questions the legal validity of a civil marriage and the chastity of those so married, has evidenced its knowledge to the contrary by inserting at the last moment sub-clause 3, as an attempt to save the Anglican clergyman, who reads the Prayer Book marriage service of his Church (the State Church of the British nation) from the penalty imposed in the sub-clause The absurdity now exists that,- even with the saving influence of subsection 3, the Anglican who says in the street, what he reads in the marriage service will be exposed to the penalty. . “T have no hesitation in saying that, if the bill in its present form receives the final sanction of the Government, and they dare to take action under its new provisions against offending clergy, then, in a short time, -a way out from an impossible position will he found in the withdrawal from all clergy of license-to marry. Marriage will he made a purely civil act that can be performed only by State officials. Those Nonconformist ministers who have encouraged this legislation will not be called ‘blessed’ by those who succeed them. One would think that attenuated congregations, the preponderance of women over men among those who still attend, miserable stipends, and increasing, evidence that the Churches are more and more losing their grip upon the people, would make the clergy careful, lest by any ill-advised action they accelerate this declension; and yet they arc so blind to the significance of the statement made by speaker after speaker in the course of the debate that ‘the best thing to do will be to follow the-example of France, and make marriage a State act,’ that, in order to hitAanother communion. they are inviting their fate. Once let this action be taken by the State, and within a very few years not five people in every 20 will trouble to go to a religious service, as an appendix to a civil marriage, and denominational conflict will have resulted in the snapping of one of the few remaining links that bind the Church to the homo and social life of the people, with disastrous consequences so'far as religion is concerned. “My opposition to this legislation has been attributed by Mr. Howard Elliott and bis supporters to mv desire to secure the Catholic vote. 1. do not think that my record as a politician justifies this sneer, but I- leave that to the public judgment. I am also well content to let the future decide whether my action in pleading for a modification of the debated clause has been wise -or otherwise.” • , ' •"£