Cedar Falls gazette. [volume] (Cedar Falls, Iowa) 1860-1895, 1870-08-05
NUMBER 10.

dlvidual trans eression. What a nos
BILE, manly conception of marriage is
this which asserts equality Of ac-
countability, but denies equality of
right and privilege' 1T Is worthy
the Turk or the Digger Indian,
Let us contrast with this the views
of marriage entertained by the friends
OF equal rights. We hold that no
human being is naturally the slave
of another, and that no relation iu
life should establish slavery, either
theoretically or practically; that true
marriage is n loving union OF two
souls adapted to each other, sounding
out and complementing each other,
and moving on I'm life, heart In heart
and hand In hand, making mutual
concessions, exercising mutual char.
ity, and working together as unit
I'm the attainment of the great pur-
pose OF life; that If any individual
rights are to be forfeited by marriage,
the forfeiture must be mutual and
not by one to the advantage of the
other; that the marriage relation can
justly impose no subordlnation or
servitude on the one hand, nor legal
superiority, or mastership on the
other; that the soul, or real human
ity, of the wife Ia of equal dignity
and value In the eyes of the Almighty
with that of the husband and worthy
of equal consideration that so far as
government is concerned, the hus-
band and wife are, as individuals,
equally interested that IL shall be eff.
ficient, equally subject to its penal
ties, equally entitled to It's protection
and possess an equal natural right to
voice In making 1t just, efficient
and impartial; that the true oneness
OF the marriage relation does not con-
sist In making the husband lord over
the wife, thus blotting out her indi~
vlduality, but in that natural coali-
tion OF souls and that blending of
hopes, ambitions and interests, that
bind them together as equal compan.
ions, recognizing I'm each other per-
feet equality of rights, duly respect
ing each others opinions, and know
ing no such words as command aud
obey. This is the individuality In
which we believe and not the indi.
viduality of which you falsely accuse
us.
But further than this, VIC believe
that while many enter upon the mar
riage relations so lily prepared for 1t
that their inelinations often lead
them to desire It's dissolution, still
the great interests of the masses i'm
society demand that the mutual OBJ
legations of marriage, voluntarily
taken as they are, shall not be put
off without The most cogent reasons.
Does this look like free-love? Is this
terrible doctrine of individuality, as
| have portrayed 1t, anything less
than the doctrine of high. minded
justice ard honor? And yet that we
want the scales of justice TO balance
between man and woman IL the sum
of our offending! sr.. ... .-...
must close just at the entrance to
this branch of the subject, on account
of your limited space. While your
readers are thus left to follow out In
their own minds tho deductions I
would gladly draw with direct refer
ence to the main question, must re-
quest you to cease creditlng me with
sentiments | have neither entertained
nor expressed, but which you adroitS
ly use for the purpose of creating
prejudice against me aud binding
the eyes OF your readers to the real
question at issue. .....
Very cordially yours, w
.. III j. l.. LooMIa