Audubon County Republican. [volume] (Audubon, Audubon Co., Iowa) 1885-1894, 1889-07-04
DECEASED WIVES SISTERS.
Why the Lords Vote Down the
Marriage Bill OF Commons.


I Marriage Bill OF Commons.
/ had always supposed that the OBJ
jcct OF the existence of the house Of
lords was to prevent hasty, impulsivt
legislation on the part OF the popular
br..nch Of the Legislature, says La
bouchere i'm London Truth. But fol
forty long years successive houses oil
commons have declared themselves in
favor of marriage with deceased
wifc's sister. The measure, therefore,
does not become law because the indi.
vidual opinions of certain number OF
peers are against it.
listened to the debate in the hou Sc
OF lords last Thursday. What struck
me was the weakness OF the theolog-
ical arguments against the bill. Moses
gave laws to u tribe of wandering
Arabs. Some OF these laws, we are
told, are binding on us; some are not.
Among those that arc binding is the
prohibition against marrying a de-
ceased wife's sister. Why this dis
tnction was made no one explained.
Jacob married two sisters at the same
time, Abraham married his sister, and
then are ordered to marry the wive )
OF their deceased brothers. What is
the answer? Jacobs two wives were
only half-sisters, Abraham might only
have been distant relation OF Sarah,
for. though he is called her broth 81,
the word brother may have meant q
cjusin; and, although men were Or
dercd to m lrry the wives of their de-
ceased brothers, the marriage was not
a real one, for the children Gf any of
the union wero regarded us children OF
TIE deceased brother. Such theologic
.imble-rigging us this is, | should
fancy, calculated TO bring religion into
contempt.
But the opponents of the bill did not
trust to the theologic argument
They said that the abolition OF the
prohibition is socially undesirable,
because otherwise sisters-in-law would
not be able to take care OF their
dead sisters children without being
suspected of matrimonial designs on
the widower. What woman, then, is
to take care of the children? A gov
erness might equally be suspected. 1t
logically follows, therefore, that if we
are to assent to this doctrine the
daughters OF widowcrs must either be
sent to school or be brought up by
men.
\ day or two after the division | was
talking to an hereditary legislator who
La | taken part in it. Vote against
It," he exclaimed, with every appear
a1ce of intense Indignation. "Of
course | did! An infamous bill!
would oppose it ut any sacrifice" But
why do you feel so strongly about it.,
my friond?' asked. STRONGLY? Why,
because | regard il as an utterly unjus-
tifiable outrage to compel man t.
marry Il woman whom no possibly de-
tsts.' This poor creature really
thought tn t the bill proposed to rem
DIR marriage with deceased wife j
sister compulsory. | dare say that
there were many more in the lobby
who had equ lily hay views on the
subject.
| eXplained to this worthy peer-a
most estimable man, but no biblical
tholar-that, although no one now
proposes to force n MN into marriage
9th his wife's sister, the Law of Moses
formerly compelled man 10 marry
his deceased brothers wife. When
further explained that it was this same
law OF Moses which is alleged to pro-
hibit marriage with deceased wife's
ser. and that tho opposition to the
pre- sent bill is founded upon the law Of
Noses, the poor peer was utterly mys-
titled. | am afraid that have shaken
his faith in the cqnsistencc Of Moses,
but nothing could have BEEN further
from my intention.