Arizona weekly citizen., 1883-02-04
Marriage and Divorce

HUI aa. 4Al1 uuN FSAAtH - '' N'N ~--0f - 1 Satan always finds work for idle hands t
 do and having some leisure moments a
 my disposal will leayeit to the reader 0
 this article to judge fl IL be the evil on'
 who moves me to the consideration O
 the question of divorce.
 From the earliest records Of man, tn, institution ot marriage has, in civilized
 nations, at least, been surrounded anC
 in great measure protected by a halC
 of religious sentiment which needed but
 the rough hand of modern Legislation
 to dispel and reveal to the public gag;
 it's many hIdeous and hitherto hidder ! features.
 The tle which unltes husband and | wife Is styled ID accordance with the aforesaid time hOnOred sentiment, the Holy bonds of MatrimOny, but the daily
 revelations of domestic infehcIty occur ring in our Courts not only demonstrates the mOckery of such an appeliatiOn iu a vast proportion of the marriages Oi
 the day but would seem to suggest that
 1t be changed to that Of the fiery bonds
 h-l.
 The common law in pursuance of it's
 claim as being the refined essence of the common sense of past ages and reg ard
 less of the holy character with which
 the holy matrimonial relation has been
 enveloped, declares marriage to be Q evil contract,-but why 1t stopped
 there and leaves marriage us the only civil contract known to the law not dis soluble by the mutual consent of the parties thereto, Is hard to determine in view of the matrimonial experiences brought tO the light of day through the agency of our modern divorce laws. The only reasonable solution of such an anomaly must be that although common law Is undoubtedly as 1t IS claimed to be, common sense, that the stock of the lat ter was not all exhausted by past agesT but that as in those old times common sense was nothing more nor less than the outgrowth of mans practical experi- ence, so as the world and the iDstItu- tions of mans progress. the stock of common sense increased, and the law should be altered from time to time 10 keep pace.
 That thls Is the correct conclusion is
 
 of alterations of and addition to the com mon law being made, not only by the Legislatures of this country but also by the Parliament of England, the country wherein the Common Law had it's birth.
 Marriage itself has 5y no means es- caped the progressive hand of modern The marriage contract from being altogether indIssoiuble, has descended from the high gospel ground of "whOm God hath joined together let no man put esunder.' and through the agency ot statutory law the dissolution thereof has become but too common an occurrence.
 Whether the world has been benefit sd by the process adopted for the disso- lution uf this hitherto sacred tie, and by the disgusting and demoralizing sources of public scandal winch they af ford. IS a question which It is about time should be seriously considered.
 It cannot but be too apparent to tine mind that the pUbhc morals 1 demand that either some radical change l should be made n the now existing l aws Tor divorce, or that marriage be l again made altogether InGissOluble.
 The almost daIly dish-ng up for the | pubic delectatlon of the painful scan ! Ials connected with domestic unhapp. ness not only demorahzes the public | morals and deprlves uatrinony Of its ! ,acred character. but also renders the !. lsing generation Of both sexes suspi- | ,ious Of the marriage relation and 10th | Q enter into It upon their own account | est they too may furnish the material | or a nlns days wonder.
 So far from hayIng the intended effect 4 promoting the public good, our d. -Orce laws have, ID fact, contrary Iu- luencs, injurious alike to public and private morals. Under them there Is 10 relief to the husband and wife of up- ight character. true Co themselves, to ociety and to their God, but who, trough general dIssimIarIty ID tastes nd dispositions, inequality of educa- ion, or the thousands Of little incidents f life impossible to describe to outside arties, or even, perhaps, for themselves 0 understand or remember in detail. ave come to feel for each other a mu- ual hate and repulsiOn making their married relation an unbearable torture. ! [ IS absolutely necessary that one or the ther of the parties should come before be public and charge the other with ome outrageous and disgraceful con i uct, and to make such a course feRsi- le. that other must become black ! heep among his fellow men and de- art from sirict rectitude of conduct l |, nd decency, or else both be held to- ether through life by the hated bonds. I How many naturally virtuous omen are thus drawn into dis Dlute habits, or men of high loral principles are led into low ring themselves to 8 level beneath the 1 casts of the iielG, uy being compelled y our laws to give a satisfactory reason the public for a dissolution of their ? latrimo nial partnerships, eau only be s f ever. on that great day [ universal Judgment.
 Is it then sacrIlegious to suggest and ren tO urge, since the marriage rela- ! on IS no longer sacred from the inter Y renee of the law for its termination, p lat an end might be put tO many of the [ lblic and private evils arising from O lch interference by placing it upon the me basis with other civil contracts, j. P |, dsterminable by mutual consent? P For instance, couple determine that O Iat they can no longer live together in T. lat perfect accord SO essential to do- O estic bliss, and mutually agree that 1T .ey will separate. neither one perhaps any reason for such course J lat could be explained to the satIsfac- on of third persOn-oT even though Iod substantial reasons exist, such as lminal acts by either one or both par ., es, what necessity for Yarading them
 the courts for public demoralizGtion, } long as they mutually agree to dis - dye their marriage? Let the law then -Ovide that such a couple may 20 be- Ire some officer authorized to take ac- of deeds, and execute \ lder seal, and ID duplicate, SO that lch party can have an original, an yreement in which they can provide for , le division of their common property, .e support of the wife, the care, custody V ld education of their children; which s yreement, when duly acknowledged. [, 2 each of the parties thereto, separate D ld apart from the other, to be their h ee act and deed for the uses and pur- 1ses therein sst forth. free from all ., ar, or restraint or duress from the of her, aud recorded in the County Re sl 'rder's office, to operate as q legal di- 2, % ,rce between the parties thereto, leav- ', g each free to marry again. q That such law would prove to be an [, iportant step in the onward march of T yilizatiOn and most potent applica- ie on of common sense, derived from ex- o' Irience, to the promotion Oi both pub "a , and private morals and thus ma riRlly add to the general happiness of | '. ankipd seems at least plausible. and ] IS to be hoped that our Legislature, nile entering the sacred precints of ,mestic life to snatch from thence the - fe and mother and drag her through e slums of political life to the ballot ,x, will consider whether it would not
 better to devote some of the time us to be wasted to their constituencies - elevating the subject of divorce to it's .