New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-04-10
Marriage aud Divorce.

r. The Editor Of The Tribune
You taunt me with making marriage an agree
ment between two persons to live together during
pleasure" | should certainly rather view it thus
than as an agreement to live together during dis
pleasure But, properly speaking, it IS not an
agreement of the parties at ALL if by that word be
meant the enforced assumption OF an obligation
by them The lovers desire the possession of each
other person. The State allows this only upon
their covenantng that this possession shall be ex
elusive to themselves. Consequently whenever a
fixed aversion arises between the parties, they
feel themselves suffering not from their own act
bat from that OF the State IL was the State alone
which imposed this pledge OF outward fidelity,
holding out lure the while which would make
any pledge easy, were it the creeping upon ones
hands and knees from Dan to Beersheba The
lovers could have been quite happy without any
such pledge. 1t was only the interests Of the
State which exacted II. Let u.s. therefore say the
parties, besege the State for relief Our misery
flows from it alone. Let it fI nish the remedy
What prevents the State doing 50 What pre-
vents it allowing freedom OF divorce The dread
of FORGETTING the advantage which TO it from
the institution OF permanent marriage. Society en-
joins permanent marriage upon its subjects because
1t Incapable OF rearing and educating its offspring
Its defective organization makes no provision for
the iniantlle nurture and development OF those who
are constitute its future body. Society, there
fore, feeling the vital importance of such provision
10 its own stability, bestows abundant honor upon
the parental relation the integrity aud efficiency of
which guaranteed only by the institution Of per
manent marriage. This is the interest which lies
az the root OF the institution, and which Society fears
10 compromise by allowing freedom OF divorce.
Is the fear OF Society in this respect welound-
ed Is it probable that freedom Of divorce would
render the marriage tie less permanent than it now
IS , think not On the contrary, | think it would
render the tie more permanent by nusing wholly
new charm into the relation. That which renders
the relation enchanting that which eliminates all
the poetry the lovers ioresaw in IL is the fact that
they longer freely yield themselves u each
other bat each is entitled to the other wily-nilly
The sovereign charm Of love IS that the relation Of
the parties IS purely personal or spontaneous, that
each yields the other an uRc0nstrdined homage
The moment that either suspects the other Of an
interested motive pecuniary social that moment
love unfolds his wings and returns 10 Heaven IL
MI not suffer cOnsraint For this reason il is that
marriage so often becomes the grave OF love. Its
essential freedom is surrendered % the exigencies
OF the State. The lovers have exchanged their
personal relation 10 each other FOR a civil relation
They are no longer sovereign persons but parts Of
a stupendous mechanism, which they must obey or
perish Their intimacy IS no longer secluded or
known only to God and themselves It is laid bare
TO the garsh eye Of day and proaned by the assent
or dissent OF the universal rabbIe The whole pub
lie has become party To the relation, and exerts a
controlling influence upon its duration. COnse.
quently the very lie OF love, which is freedom or
privacy IS slain, and the parties who yesterday
thought their relation too intimate Tor the light Of
Heaven 10 penetrate, see It to-day desecrated and
polluted by the universal public gaze.
Freedom OF divorce would restore personal rea.
tons 70 the parties, and reknde the AIDED Joys of
love. Were this freedom legitimated to morrow.
doubt not that many who to-day desire separation
would hesitate 10 avail themselves of the permis
sion. For that which chiefly inhibs their present
cordial Intercourse, namely, civil obligation would
thus be removed, and they would stand in wholly
uAtried relations to each other Rather, their tie
would be brought back 10 its original purity. and
each recover IN the eyes OF the other some hat of
that primal innocence which characterized them
before the serpent bliss Of human policy deadened
the voice Of God in their souls You entirely mis-
conceive the truth Of the matter, if you suppose