The Cincinnati daily star. [volume] ([Cincinnati, Ohio]) 1875-1880, 1876-08-12
Clergymen & Secret Marriages.

We read In the news items of yester-
day an account OF an assault upon
clergyman by a man whose daughter
had been enticed into runaway match
by an unworthy fellow, and which secret
marriage the clergyman had solemnized.
We do not presume that an assault un-
der any circumstances is very credit
able mode OF settling matters OF differ
ence. Least OF all would an assault upon
u clergyman be deemed justitiable, when
it is considered that he is professional
''non-combatant."
But then what is to be done in such a
easeY The clergyman has lent himself
and the functions of his office under the
law TO work the utmost mischief and
misery upon the respectable parents oil
an only daughter, by voluntarily SOL
emnizing her marriage in secret with Il
man who was a known scoundrel. Such
man, whether clergyman or layman,
preacher or magistrate, deserves at
least good threshing for thus permit.
of bringing such infinite harm upon
others who had never harmed him.
Granting that the parties were of full
age, as required by the law, for entering
into a contract of marriage without
parental consent, that does not help the
clergy mans case when the circum-
stances are such as to give him grounds
for presuming that it was a runaway
match. Because clergyman is author
lied by the law to solemnize marriages,
the law does not require of him this SER
vice as a matter of necessary duty. 1t
authorizes, but it does not command,
him TO marry parties coming before him
for that purpose. II the circumstances
are unusual and irregular, the clergy
man may well decline officiating in the
solemnization of any marriage. And
we hold that he ought, under such cir
cumstances, to withhold his services, at
least till explanation be made.
The tact about this business Is that
clergymen are becoming quite too loose
In their views on the subject of secret
marriages and runaway matches. 1t has
happened not unfrequentIy that they en-
tor into The proceedings in advance, with
iuH knowledge of the parental ban
against the marriage. They even 90 so
far as to put themselves to inconveni-
ence to promote the transaction. And
they chuckle over the affair,
and pride themselves on the part they
took to cOnsummate the matter, as
though it were a small thing that fond
and prudent parents were thus bereft of
a daughter who had imprudently yielded
herself to marriage by stealth to a
worthless sCoun0rel, whose villainy may
as yet be hidden. And we could not
envy the feelings of any right-minGed
clergyman or magistrate who should af-
terwards see the misery, perhaps in-
fanny, brought upon beloved daughter
and a respectable household, by his con-
senting 10 solemnize her marriage
knowingly in opposition to parental con-
troll.
Marriage is too important a matter
TO be thus tritied with by those who are
made the lawful authorities for it's sol.
There may be instances
where there is undue restraint, or
where the daughter may choose wisely
md well in opposition to parental
Judgment. But such instances are the
Arrest exceptions. The rule is, disap-
oinIment, disgrace, wretchedness, and
uin. And what clergyman, for pal.
ry fee, could be found willing to take
uch an infinite risk by solemnizing
eeret marriages among runaway {
latches? Were some brother clergyman
0 do this in the case Of his daughter,
espite his robe of grace, he would feel
Ike pounding him into a jelly for thus
ending the functions of his office to des-
ate his homp