New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-03-21
THE PEOPLES COLUMN.

CBrirf Communications PubHshed-Lony
Ones Invariably Rgected-1he Editor not
Responsible for the Sentiments Expressed
IN the Communications.
Communicated
.'VVhO is Married, the Man or NOnans"
This question was discussed at length in
the columns of last Sundays Times. and
settled. comfortably, dogmatically. and
wrong'-that is in my opinion. The Times
saws that the proper form OF wording a mar
riagc notice is not. Married: John Smith to
Fannie, daughter Of etc: but, Married:
Fannie, daughter of, etc. to John Smith"
and in proof of this proposition it asserts
that the woman is always given TO the man,
and that in the state of wedlock her "indi-
viduality" is absorbed" into his, marriage
being simply the giving by the woman Of
herself to the man, the hand being taken as
the representative of herself Now this
statement is not in accordance with fact.
Neither form of marriage notice quoted
above conveys a correct idea. Instead of
either it should be. married ito each other
understoodj: John Smith and Fannie
daughter Of" etc.
The words cited from the marriage ser
vice. "WhO giveth this moman to be
welded to this man .'' are taken from the
service of the Church of England. and are
consequently no authority whatever, ex-
cept to persons belonging to that Church;
nor even to them, in this country, for such
il form of expression belongs to old times.
and a totally different social condition from
our own. In this country, and in these
DAYS, the woman Is not given to the man
nor the man to the woman. but they give
themselves to each other. The in
,lividuaitv' of the wife is not ''ab-
Sorbed' into that of the husband.
unless she is Il nonentitv or he a tyrant.
The marriage relation is ought to be one
of reciprocity; a partnership for domestic
purposes. i'll which the partners. though
each taking charge of different depart
ments. enjoy perfect equality. and if love.
such love as alone justities the connection,
presdes over the household, the question
which is the ruling power' will never
present itself between them. As the lab
sorption of individuality" that will be
done by the stronger in will-power in pro-
portion to that strength; and it is as likely
to be effected by the woman as by the man.
When it does take place it is discreditable
to both parties. and destroys the intent OF
the coniugal relation, which, for perfection.
requires the harmonious cO-eXiStence Of
masculine and feminine individualites.
1t is true. as the Times asserts, that the
man asks for the hand of the woman. as
the phrase goes, but. if he has IA grain of
common sense. he does not take that step
until he is pretty well satisfied i'll his own
mind that she is quite ready to 9 i've it. As
general rule, to which there are few cx-
ceptions, none but a coxcomb or a slmpleton
is ever refused As for the counting which
theoretically. is always done by the man IL
Is usually in point of fact not so one-slded an
affair as ga!lantry politely represents 1t. as
NAV be tested at any time by any lover of
an experimental turn of mind. He has
ONLY to interlnit his assduitieS. and await
the result If real love exists on the other
side that result is seldom doubtful.
To return to the point at issue, think
the proposition "to' as much out OF place
before the name of the woman as before
that OF the man. And is the word. John
Smith and Mary Jones having courted
each other for a reasonable or unreasonable.
length of time. marry each other; ana II
they are a true hearted, right minded
couple, the individuality of neither is
absorbed and no question Of ''authority
ever arises between them. j. >.