Cedar Falls gazette. [volume] (Cedar Falls, Iowa) 1860-1895, 1870-08-12
THE GAZETTE.
CEDAR FALLS, AUGUST l2, 1870.
"Equal Rights

To j. L. LOOMS ESQ, INDEPENDENCE
In your view of the marriage rela-
tion we have another illustration of
what has been everywhere manifest
in the attempt to substitute skepticaI
theories for the teachings of the
Bible, viz: very much lower and
impractical standard to take the place
of the true one. Your idea OF the
christian theory of marriage as shown
in your correspondence is but carl
cature of that theory throughout.
True you can caricature scriptural
marriage and make it seem unjust
and oppressive, and then present a
theory that is better than your Carl
cature. This has been the course of
the skeptic in all ages, and he has
given some plausibility to his false
views by contrasting them with those
more false and then with the air of
triumph has flourished his trumpet
of reform. Your attempt to improve
on the christian idea of marriage Is
as IL you would substitute the false,
flickering impracticable light of u
taper for the grand vitalizing all per-
vading light of the sun. You only
excite smile in all right minded
persons. BY this caricature of the
christian marriage you only show
that you have never yet come to
know the true import of relation SO
grand, SO pure, so exalted, so above
and beyond the petty whims and
fancies of would-he reformers as to
be dwarfed in their eyes. You show
that you minify the greatness of this
relation by reason of the great dis
tance your philosophy removes you
from it, and through which you come
to view it.
Nor is this peculiar to yourself.
This same attempt to ridieule and
carieature the christian law of mar
riage aboHnds in woman rights dis.
cussions and woman suffrage meet
ings. 1t seems to be sort of univer-
sal conviction among woman rights
advocates that the only pea they
can make for their disintegrating
doctrines will gain all its force by
misrepresenting the actual and au-
thoritative relations of the married
pair. Hence such misrepresenta.
tions, cdricatures i'm fact. What
mean such terms in your correspond
ence as slave" applied TO the wife,
male master" applied to the hus.
band, ''lord," "she nothing-he
everythingn "IIe is her absolute
lord and master" ''she his humble
and devoted slave" We haze said
no such thing IN H'iS discussion. We
have only said that the christian law
of marriage, which we adopt, makes
the tco ono. This you caricature as
above, and then forsoo:h, having
built your "maH of straw" go hero.
ically to work to knock it down.
Bravo! .."
As in all attempts to substitute
human wisdom and philosophy for
Divine, so have you given an incon-
ceivably lower idea Of the marriage
relation than the christian idea.
Ridicule itas you choose, your theory
Is too toW to be practical. too debasing
to he useful in building society upon.
Is nothing less than what we said
before, the continued individuality
OF the married pair. This you deny
and accuse Us of misrepresenting you
In the assertion. This is q hard
charge and If we believed il true
would apologize to you for it. But
then, after this charge, even in your
last letter, you proceed at once ia
your very next paragraph to show
the individuality of the parties after
marriage! Strange fsntftP @@
Now see how absurd your attempt
to escape this position. The whole
structure Of your articles Is based OH
it. 1t prompts every sentence aud
heads every letter. What means the
caption which has headed this cor
respondence from your pen from the
first, Equal Rightsr You cannot
predicate equality between one
There must be two, or more, Ina order
for the idea Of equality to obtain.
Then you say in your last. speaking
OF The relation of the husband and
wife, recognizing in each other per
feet equality of rights, duly respect.
ing each others opinions and know.
ing no such words as command and
obey. What, all that and not two
individuals Absurd! Perfect
equality Of rights.n What! One
unit possessing afperfect equality ol
rights! Nonsense. What do you
mean by equal rights but that the
husband and wife as individuals
shall stand in equal relation to
the law, governments, society ballot
and every thing else? Then what
do you mean when you say that"s
far as government is concerned the
husband and wife are as iRdtgidudl,
equally interested that it shall he eff
iicient, equally subject to It's penal,
ties, equally entitled to its protection
and possess an equal natural right
Ito q voice In making 1t efficient, &C.,
and yet you say we unequivocalI,
niisrepresent you when We say yol
advocate the continual individual
tity Of the married pair.'' LII YOU
language does not mean that, II doc,
not mean anything. Out on such
base attempt to unjust'y accuse al
opponent!
Yet measure Of apology is seen In
the fact; already intimated, that yol
seem scarcely To know at times TIN
meaning of your own sentences
Yol affirm and deny, you take po
sition and that when we restate it
you accuse us Of misrepresentation
You seem hardly to understand 9TH,
great principles on which this reform
Is based" and make such crookee
work trying to state them. Yol
seem like one of whom we heard
who undertook to preach and after
few sentences in which he said moth
ing, finding it impossible to proceed
said, my brethering, ! find IL Yer,
difficult to express clearly to other,