The Manitowoc pilot. [volume] (Manitowoc, Wis.) 1859-1932, 1886-08-19
Htanitomof pilot.
THURSDAY, AUGUST 10, 1886.
THE WIFE'S VOW.

THE WIFE'S VOW.
The press, that vigilant sentinel upon
the watch-tower of civil and religious
liberty, like Sister Anne upon Blue
boards turret deserted something
wrong in the ceremony of the presi-
dents wedding. 1t whispered audibly
that the Reverend Doctor omitted from
the service the word 'obey," and that
the lady therefore became q wife with
out the VOW of obedience to a husband
This incident seriously disturbed certain
newspapers whose course for many
years has shown their profound concern
for the interests Of religion, and many
excellent persons also have been anx-
ious to know whether, under such cir
cumstances, the wife has been married
properly. Indeed, there are said to be
some young women who suppose that
the VOW of obedience is the essential
marriage vow-a view in which they
are resolutely supported by many very
young gentlemen who are not very long
emancipated from maternal control.
1t may allay these tender apprehen-
sions to know not only that the word
obey is often omitted from the mar
riage ceremony, but that many yelled
ladies, in wreaths of orange flowers, in
sist upon the omission. In fact, to use
diplomatic language, the concession of
the omission has been known to be held
in many cases to be preliminary sine
qua non upon the part of one of the
high contracting parties. The word
was introduced into the ceremony by
men to express and emphasize the view
of men that the man is the head of the
woman. Indeed, the interested inquirer
viii find that most of the traditional
theories of the relations of the sexes
which are often quoted as indisputable
and conclusive arguments represent
merely the views of men. The laws
which regulate these relationship
laws of divorce, of the rights and the
control of property, of the disposition
and care of children-are the work of
men, and simply express their will.
More than quarter of century ago
Mr.. Gladstone said the divorce laws in
England were shame to civilization
and humanity.
The ladies, therefore, who suppose
that these laws and ceremonial vows
rest upon divine sanction, and who
are consequently solicitous to wear the
yoke of unquestioning subjugation, not
of choice, but as a religious duty, need
bend no longer for that reason. If they
prefer to obey, indeed, they are not re-
strained by any religious obligation,
| nor if they prefer to command. But"
interposes at this point the youthful
casuist OF the other sex, ''surely exigen-
cies of difference arise when there must
be a decisive will, and, of course, that
will must be the mans" Yes; so men
have generally said. and their views
have generally prevailed. But the gen.
eral prevalence of ignorance was not a
sound argument against the introduce
| ton OF general education, and in the
republic of reason and matrimony the
general assent of husbands cannot con-
| clude the rights of wives.
In a matrimonial difference some one
| must decide. Granted; and what should
| determine the decision? Plainly, the
right of the case. Now wife is quite
| as likely-upon the whole, indeed, more
likely be right upon family ques-
ton than the husband. Still says the
| casuist, he must decide, because he is
the breadwinner, and because he is the
stronger and can enforce his will. Very
well; then the reason disappears when
| the woman is the bread-winner, and in
that case it is plainly not as man that
the husband must decide, which ends
| the merely masculine pretension. The
| other reason. that he can enforce his
will, is applicable to the control of a
brute or of a slave, but is it applicable
| to that of wife? Moreover, when we
speak of right, we do not mean brute
force. That one man may be able to
| knock another man down, or to beat a
| woman, establishes no right to do so.
| The causist must look further if he
would justify himself.
In the matrimonial republic, indeed,
| as in all other communities, undoubted-
| ly force will decide many difference.
1t is notorious that the English law
! made by men, and interpreted by men
authorized the husband to correct the
wife with a stick of reasonable thick
ness, and upon appeal the Judge, who
| was presumably husband, decided
that reasonable thickness was about the
thickness of thumb. The British usage
also permitted the sale of the wife by
the husband, Il logical deduction from
the theory of the right of the husband
L
the wife be bound to obey the husband,
certainly the husband is authorized to
enforce obedience, and if the contuma-
cy of the wife compels resort to the stick
of thumbs thickness, it may be very
painful to Romeo to adjust his relations
with Juliet in that emphatic manner,
but who can deny the right Of the hus
band to compel the obedience which he
has the right to demand9
Does Romeo suppose, perhaps, that if
his bride promises to obey, her promise
will make the stick unnecessary? The
answer to his supposition is printed
every day in the police reports. Romeo,
if he be a sensible mainland for such
men only is this debate opened-will
see that all differences between Juliet
and himself will be determined. not by
her VOW of obedience or submission to
his will, however unwise or dangerous
or criminal his will may be, but hy
their common good sense. In the hap
py realm of conjugal affection the
stronger nature will rule. however mild
and feminine It's expression may be, as
the moon, sweet regent of the sky"
sways the ocean tides. However that
gentle regent may have vowed to fol-
low the whims of the restless sea, and
however the raging sea may toss and
roar, her vows will be resistlessly for
sworn, and all his fury vain, as she
moves softly on, and he up every cove
and bay runs obediently after.
As the eternal and divine laws assert
themselves in the happy realm, Romeo
the husband will perceive that marriage
vows are not promises to be enforced,
but lovers protestations to be fulfilled
They are very solemn. and of mighty
import. They unite two lives for better
or worse. But the VOW 10 love, the VOW
to honor. how shall they be enforced
when love has fled and honor is no
longer possible? A vow is a form of
words, heartfelt purpose. But has
it "a charm to stay the morning-star?
Has it the power to hold heart to its
betrayer. or honor 10 the dishonored?
The downy- bearded casuist, therefore.
need not insist ardent,y that there shall