The Red Cloud chief., 1886-08-13
THE WIFE'S "OBEi."
Why II Ia Often Omitted from
Marriage Services.

The pres, thai yigilant sentinel upon
the watch-towcr of civil and religious
liberty, Ike Sister Anne upon Blue
Iicurd's turrri. deserted something
dent wedding. IL whispered audibly
tina, the reverend Doctor omitted from
the service the word obey. and that
the lady therefore became "A wife with
out the view oil obedience to 4 husband.
This incident seriously disturbed GER
tain spapcr> whose course for mani
wears has shown their profound con
Germ for the inter '>t> of religion. and
many excellent persons also have been
anxious to know whether. und.r such
circumstances, the wife has been mar
rird PROPERLY. Indeed. there are said
la Ia" ON Young ONE who suppose
that the VOW of oh.dicnce j. the cssrn-
tial marriage yow-a view III which
they are r->olutclv supported by MANY
very Young gentlemen who are not very
long cmancipatrd from maternal con
troll.
Il NAV ALLAN these fender apprchcn-
sion> to know not only that the word
obey j. often omitted from the marriage
ceremony. but that MANY vailed ladies.
in wreath> of orangc flowers, insist up
-on the omission. Ia fact. 10 Use
diplomatic language. the concession of
the omission has been known To be
held in MANY eases Ia b- a preliminary
sun ora non upon the part of one IF
the high contracting parties. The
word WAS introduced into the ceremony
Sy men 10 express and emphasize the
view of men tina, the man i the head
of the Indeed. the Interested
inquirer will find that most of the
traditional theories of the relations IF
the sexes which are often quoted rs in
disputahlc and conclusive arguments
represent merely the views If men.
The laws which regulate these relations
= the laws of divorce. of the ri rhtS and
the control of property. of the DISPOSE
lion and care of children-arc the work
of men. and simply express their Will.
More than a quarter of a century ago
Mr.. Gladstone said the divorce laws in
England We're q shame 10 civilization
and humanity.
The ladies. therefore. who suppo>e
that these laws and traditions and GER
emonial vows res, upon a Divine sane
ton, and who are consequently solicit
Gus 10 wcarthc yoke of unqueStioainc
subjugaiion, not of choice. but a. a re-
liSious duty. need bend DO longer for
that reason. If they prefer d obey.
indeed. they are not restrained by anv
religious obligation. nor If they pre-
fer ( command. But" interpoSes
at this pom; The youthful ca>uis, of the
other sex. surely eNigencies OF differ
encc arise when there must be a de-
cisive will. and. of course. that will
must be the mans" Yes: so men
have generally said. and their views have
generally prevailed. But the general
prevalence Of ignorance was not 4
sound argument, against the introduce
ton of general education. and in the
republic of reason and matrimony the
general assent OF husbands can not on
clude the rights of wives
In a matrimonial difference some
one must decide. Granted: and what
should determine the decision? Plain
IL. the right of the ease. Now Il wife
is quite as likely-upon the whole. in
deed. more likely-to be right upon a
family question than the husband.
Still. Il Y the ~casuis;. he must decide.
because he is the bread-winner. and
because he is the stronger and can en-
force his will. Very well: then the
reason disappears when the oma is
1.-THE bread-w inner. and. in that case, il
lis plainly not rs a man that the hu>-
bland must decide. which ends the
merely masculine pretension. The
sbther reason. that he can enforce his
will. is applicable to the control of =
brute or of q slave. but is it applicable
10 that of 3 wife? Moreover. when
Re speak of right We do not mean
rirute force. That one man may be
bio to knock another man down. or