New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-04-07
MARRIAGE-DIVORCE.
To RoBkRr DALE OwKs;


to introduce new views into this letter. WI Sim
ply sum up the controversy as it stands
j. have hitherto shown, and you have not at
tempted TO disprove that Marriage is, according TO
every standard dictionary anOHfo hte, ndlss9uble
at the pleasure of the married, either OF them.
have Insisted that you have right to use this import
ant word IN vitality different from that given to
IL bv the great photographers What you favor may
be aver so much better thsn Marriage Though believe
IL far otberwise), but it is manifestly not the
thing and you ought TO give 1t a distinctive name
When am told that two persons are married, l un.
erand tbst they have cOvenanted to live together as
husband and wife, not during pleasure, but during
6(e The Dictionaries the Christian religion the gen.
sral consent of my countrymen and of the civilized
world, fully justify me in that conception. When
therefore, you apply the term Marriage to very diff
ferent compact, you not merely use words uDjusifa-
bly,, but you virtually confess the badness of your
cause. The tradesman who counterfeits anothers
trademarks virtually confesses the infenonty Of his
own wares. protest, then, against your using the
word Marriage to designate any other union than
for life. II A. and B. have agreed, with much
ceremony, to live and wife until one both Of
them shsl see fit to separate and form relations
they may be ever 80 wisely and nationally paired but
they are not married. made this point as strongly
have not met it. At all events, mind the Apostles
injunction TO "Hold fast the form Of sound words"
We who stand by Marriage as Jesus Christ established
and Noah Webster defines it have right to the word
by which that relation has been characterized
What you advocate is quite another thingbe pleased
TO give il distinguishing Then If we call our
compact by your name, the public viii understand that
we admit your union TO be more RATIONAL honorable,
ennoblpg than AT all events, we warn you oil
our premises and insist that you shall not lay your eggs
IN our nest II you demand liberty 10 form temporary
unions, we win consider that demand but you must
not call them marriages. for, though they may be the
same to you, they are far otherwise to MS.
ii. As to the religious or Christian view Of the sub
ieet rest on the simple explicit averment Of Jesus of
Nazareth as universally understood and regarded by
the Christian Church for eighteen centuries. We
know what Hebrew, Greek, Roman laws and customs
respecting the marital union in Christs day. we
know that Jesus propounded and his disciples accepted
q very different law-that of Marriage Indssoluble
but by DEATH by that crirhe which is death to all the
sanctities of marriage. We know that Orthodox and
Hereto Catholic and Protestant literal and liberal,
with barely exceptions enough TO provo the rule,
have understood the Saviour's doctrine Of Marriage
throughout the Christian centuries l do to-day.
That this Christian doctrine of Marriage is chief
supremacy of Europe over Asia in our day, do most
firmly believe; you will regard it as you think fit.
And as 10 Moses and his law, with all you have to say
of them, all the answer that seems to needed is
contained in the few words of Jesus on that very
points Moses for the hardness of your hearts, per-
nitted easy divorces but from the beginning it was
"not So"
III have said that the divine end of Marriage lie
"the perpetuation and increase of the human race"
BY that affirmation abide. OF course, did not say
that Marriage has no other end than this; al your
criticism TO me ludicrousy inappode. do not
urge that in true sexual union everything else but the
production, nurture and welbeing of children must
be ignored. do insist that there must be nothing in
compatible or inconsistent with this required TO say
whether the union of this man with this woman is
true noble and honorable or sensual selfish and debas
ing, must ask, "Wond they gladly have children
"born of IT. Would they proudly acknowledge those
children before the world, and undertake TO fulfill 70
"them all the duties Of parents not, their union,
though impelled by mutual admiration and Ggnalzed
by lsva-Aood of passion, is shameful and unbest.
The sexual union which the immediate parties prefer
should he ehildless has no right to be at all.
/ was shocked when / heard an apostle Of your
faith say some years SINCE We hold that the parents
are not to be sacrificed to the children" hold, on
the contrary that the lives of true psrents are filed
with acts of sefsacrfce for their children their
lives have been well spent who have given to
the world offspring nobler than themselves. And,
while I admit that the conduct of husband may be
30 outrageous, brutal, as TO justify the innocent
wife in requiring separation, insist that one who
truly comprebends the nature and purposes Of Mar
rage will not seek to marry another while the father
of her children is still living. do not think she could
look those children in the eye with all mothers con-
scious purity ard dignity while realizing that their
father and her husband, both living, were different
men. Nor do feel that she could be TO them all that
a mother should be under such conditions.
w. The vice of age the main source of its aberra
toDs morbid Egotism, which Oyerrides the grayest
social necessities in its mad pursuit Of individual per-
sonal ends Your fling at that intangible generality
called SOCIETY,"" is directly in point. You are con-
cerned chiefly for those who, having married unfor-
tnnatey If not vicousy seek relief from their bonds
am anxious rather TO prevent, at least 10 render
;rf,eouept immoral and Unfit sexual unions hereafter
The ise1ies Of the unity mated may be deplorabei
but 10 make divorce easy is in effect 10 invite the SEN
snail and selfish to prOane the sanctions Of Marriage
whenever appetite and temptation may prompt. Here
are q man and woman who know absolutely nothing
of each other but that they recprocaly pleased
with each others appearance, and think marriage
would conducs to their mutual enjoyment-so they
form a connubial partnership. Next year-perhaps
next monththey have tired Of each other-discovered
jncompatibilities of temper-quareled-in short they
hate each other as they very well may; 80 they are
divorced and ready to marry again. Gibbon intimates
that under the Roman liberty Of divorce, by which
IL 49, ,1,,It,n vrraina vu0Y