# The Truth about Marriage/Chapter5

CHAPTER V
UNSATISFACTORY REMEDIES
Laws which bring about some stabilization of human rights are always necessary in society. Individual judgment and desires cannot be relied upon to conserve the good of society.
The individual who enters upon companionate marriage is becoming a law unto himself. He is determining what responsibilities he owes to society. He may induce a woman to share such an uncertain future as he offers her, but in so doing is he fair to her?
Let us say that they have no children, but the woman in entering upon marriage is giving far more than the man. They are not biologically the same. She is changed even as to her appearance. She is changed in feelings. She can never be the same woman as before. The man shows little change either in appearance or physical structure. Does not the woman become the victim, however much she may be inclined to delight the man?
​Incompatibility in marriage is by no means discovered at the very first. It has its basis in many conditions which often are not apparent for a long time after marriage. The plan of companionate marriage could not possibly be a universal solution for unhappy marriages. It would affect only a certain percentage and bring in a train of evils that would far outweigh the supposed benefits.
Will a marriage deliberately entered into for the purpose of making a trial of it develop the right attitude towards marriage? Will not the first anger or discontent lead to a quick divorce? It is not an easy matter for any two individuals to live together constantly in the close intimacy of marriage. What must be the result if there is an easy chance to escape from its bonds? The coming of children is often the one thing that binds people together closely enough to enable them to understand each other. Marriage practically in every case, after the honeymoon is past, becomes a matter of mutual adjustment.
The remedy for unhappy marriage does not seem to be a trial marriage with easy divorce, but in choosing a mate who is adapted by all the conditions to enter into a marriage with the one who chooses.
Universal education along this line would seem to be the most useful requirement for happy ​marriages. Careful study of conditions beforehand need not be accompanied by sex indulgence.
Another difficulty that comes to mind is the fact of easy divorce. If a divorce be granted in the case of a companionate marriage, what is there to prevent a divorce by mutual consent in the case of unhappiness developing after children come, when the marriage has become a "family marriage?" Provided of course that in the separation agreed upon provision is made for the maintenance of wife and children, as now?
In other words, if we once admit that marriage may be ended at the will of both parties in a given case, what is to prevent easy divorce for everybody? Does not the plan, whatever its appearance, mean only universal divorce, an easy divorce, and that without a trial to ascertain the facts as to justice or injustice done?
Suppose in a companionate marriage one of the parties continues to be in love, how will it relieve the other partner of a disagreeable situation? If the woman to the agreement—I hesitate to call her a wife when she has not assumed the responsibilities of wifehood—desires to become a mother and thereby continue with the man who, secretly or openly, desires his freedom to enter into a new relationship, ​what is to prevent her becoming a mother and thereby compelling her unwilling mate to continue with her in a family marriage? Will he be happy? Will he not strive to break away?
Does not the character of men and women who enter into marriage have a great deal to do with its happiness or unhappiness? And is not the supreme thing the need to change human character?
The remedy would not seem to be to tear down the barriers of protection to human rights that now exist. Marriage will continue to be imperfect as long as the people entering it are imperfect. We can improve it only as we improve people.
And now what would the probable effect be upon the minds of young people if told that living together as man and wife, without the necessity to continue as such, was the law of the land? Would it not be apt to stimulate promiscuous sex indulgence? Young people would say, even as now they have been known to say when strongly tempted, "Marriage is after all only a form;" and the result would be complete demoralization in society with no forms at all. Unbridled lust would rule. Now we have public opinion and law to uphold the custom of a permanent marriage and make it seem to be a marriage.
​All barriers would be swept away if marriage were only a matter of trial and easy divorce, and we can easily imagine a time when men and women would be as free as dogs to mate with whatever dog of the other sex that came around.
How about monogamic marriage, marriage with one only? What is the nature of the instinct of love when it awakens in the human heart? I do not now refer to strong sex desire, but to that holy instinct of true love which puts a woman upon a pedestal and makes her an object of reverence? Does not love desire marriage only with the beloved? Does it not desire that such marriage be eternal?
Is not this kind of love truly human, even though it be mirrored now and then among the animal creation? It is distinctly opposed to mere animalism. It is a matter of the mind and spirit. It represents a true marriage of mind and soul. Shall we do away with all such ennobling sentiment that changes sordid life into transcendent beauty? Such sentiment makes marriage. Have we forgotten the romance enshrined in literature and music?
Frankly, is the word "marriage" to be thought of as an appropriate name for a relationship which has in mind only temporary sex-satisfaction? With ​a possible view later on to having children? Does not marriage unavoidably involve in thought and loving desire the purpose of children? Can it be entered upon in any other way than as involving children? The thought of children as blessing it ennobles it, gives it its true end, its heavenly fruit.
Shall we open wide the gates for easy sex relationships? Will it not be for the many who have strong sex-desire a strong incentive to try out sex relationship in a sordid way?
Wherever in human history marriage has been lightly regarded, and the marriage relationship easily dissolved, ruin has come quickly. Shall we invite a flood of debauchery?
Rather let us give the sanction of law and custom to marriage in order that it may be upheld. Lust is always ready to break it down. It respects nothing good or holy. It is the spirit of hell that would defile and destroy everything truly human.
Let us think soberly about marriage, and yet with joy, for it is the fountain of human delights if entered into with the spirit of true love, in a normal way, and for its biological purposes.
The failures in marriage are due to human nature. Let us not destroy marriage, but improve ​human nature. Let us educate it. Let us train our boys and girls to look forward to marriage as the holiest and most important of relationships. It is the fountain from which flow all other relationships. It makes the community. It continues humanity upon the earth. There is no joy that equals a happy marriage, no use so great to perform for humanity.