Litchfield enquirer., 1869-05-27
Hittk6el0 Gn4nukr.
Litchfeld, Thursday, May 27, 1869.
Divorce,

The annual onslaught On our diyorcs law has commenced. It is led, of course, by the clergy, and we confess that their s@znaEruMnessEOfyiew angers us not a little.
 Our lax law, or rather a lax practice under the law, unties about one tenth of our marriages; whereat the s'unco guid' are extremely seandalized. The statistics of the past three years show that just two- thirds of these diyorces are granted to wives. The reason is obvious: The law deprives them 'snacf .aac the control of their own property, of eds their own children, of themselves. In 60 case eso6 serious disagreement. marriage be- -sb comes to. them simply intolerable. Divorce n,, restores them their liberty, their property, bnand sometimes their children. Without 1t .iis thellaw gives them no relief Plain, com F. mon sense Gov Jewell sees this, and while rs proposing to make marriage more perma- ie, nentis liberal enough to advise that it should 2 Ai be made more just. Now, the very cler VII, ,gymen who are pressing the letter of the di- sa divine law against woman, will admit that ,inthroughout the christian world their most jealous supporters are women. It is they o49who sustain tue early Mass, the Lsut ser e1e vics, the prayer-meeting. In countries 9niwhere nearly all the men are inidel, nearly all the women are } bigots.
 Yet our clergy are the most prejndiced .opponenks of female liberty. Ii D singie q member of9 legislative committee opposes woman 'ssufrage ,iit is sure to be clergy man; the author of the stupidest book ,s7sgainst that measure seems of necessity to 'nI aI be a Doctor of Divinity; and while any ten na parson conference can grind out its resolu R tion against divorce, the divines who will be wise and christian enough to unite in offering woman a grain more of freedom yiwithin the marriage bond, are perhaps an Fl born. "'"
 .-r'i Not only is this conduct of Christ's min listers nngrateful; it is besides, in marked io,contrast with. if not in opposition to, the a teachings of their Master. Christ's inter- inference with the matter of divorce was in T behalf of, not against, the oppressed. Tine e.ITJeYish law gave the husband the power of . putting away the wife as readily as he ssyohld discharge Q servant. Practically, ooiidivorce was at his option only. In declaring a marriage perpetual, Christ put an end to 1speeies of masculine oppression so atrocious ,nthat our agesfails to comprehend it. Since ethat time, christianity has done much for wo- s maps society has advanced till the weak as inwell as the strong have "rights;" and now e,tnarfiage, formerly her castle, has become erhers prison. Courts have been established vcwhereiwoman can get justice; but unfor- tunatey those tribunals can as yet only grant justice coupled with divorce. Here bppon,ii in rush the ministers of the great oLiberator and protest against granting wo- man divorce, yet say not a word in fa- of granting her justice! Indeed, if we .1had not great assurance to the contrary. I've should hardly believe them the lineal osuecessors of Christ's chosen ministers, nbut rather of those gentlemen who asked him. 3" Is it lawful for man to put away his, wife, tempting him." ... .ag
 !odProbablY as correct an idea of what tiwemay call the "clerical programme" of divorce, is to be found in the following canon, psssed by the last Episcopal Gene tEAl Convention :--lg LoEnaoo &A 5s --
 yoNo Minister Of this Church shall solemnize matr- llmony in any case where there is divorced wife or Ihusbahd either party living; but this canon shall lnot oe hed to apply to the innocent party in di- xofce Tor cause of adultery, to parties once di- sorcsd seeking to be united again.' nl i. Tue fhndalnental error in the foregoing sGes in tue assumption that Christ ever an Inouneed divorce statute. On the con tfsry, thevery definition Of the marriage rela- ationtfthey twain shall be one flesh, Indicates that whenever one party to that contract has s' been guilty of such misconduct as permanently destroys the happiness of the ether party thereto, and defeats.the pur- poses of theI Imarciageo relatioa," tue con tract is ihrevocably broken. The strictes, c6nstEucElonists of Scripture absolve the wife troni being t',one flesh" with the ha, bitual 'drunlSard,' or with the brute who pounds her with his fists. They fall back on such devices as "divorce from bed fandoboard,'s -"iseparate maintenance, q e"pefpstual cehbacy of tue guilty party, =
 
 as complete 2 putting asunder of those sswhom God shath joined together as the falI 5daivoFce only known to Connecticut lay iaY Moreoyer. the strict constructionlss who maintaias that there is but ono scrip. turahgfodndsof divorce, comes in Conflict
 With St, Paul $ express declaration that de-
 seEtlen, n certain cases, warrants the an.
 pnling. of the marriage contract @ Lu~
 eTWeiethe foregoing ecclesiastical ss,ttutts ,tttts
 to become the rule of our municipal law.
 divorce Yeuld insieedo be sufficiently lre-
 strictedsq Every wife would have to prove Y,
 her haSptdnd guilty of State Prison of
 fepee,cand have him punished therefor, if
 hotbyimprsonment at least by enforced
 celiPasy: Tn.her attempt she would come
 psnnlIess into conrtsand there carry on th,