The sun. [volume] (Morris, Stevens County, Minn.) 1882-1895, 1889-07-11
DECEASED WIVES SISTERS.
Why. the LoTds Vote Down the
Marriage Bill Of Commons.

Why. the Lords Vote Down the
Marriage Bill Of Commons.
had always sUPpQscd that the OBJ
iect of the existence of the house of
lords WAS to prevent hasty, ilnpusive
legislation On the part Of the popular
branch Of the legislature, says La
bouchcrc in london Truth. BUT for
forty long years Successive houses Of
commons have declared themselves in
favor Of marriage with a deceased
wifc's sister. The measure, therefore,
does not become law because the indi-
vidual opinions of Il cert Ain number Of
peers are against it.
listened to the debate in the house
Of lords last Thursday What struck
me was the weakness of. ,ihe theolOG-
ical. arguments against the bill. Moses
gave laws to d tribe Of wandering
Arabs. Some of these laws, we are
told, are binding on us; some are not
Among those that are binding is the
prohibition against marrying a de-
ceased wife's sister. Why this dis
tinctiOn was made no one explained.
time, Abraham married his sister, and
men are ordered to marry the wives
Of their deceased brothers. What is
the answer? Jacobs two wives were
only half-sisters, Abraham might only
have been a distant relation of Sarah,
for, though he IS called her brother,
the word brother may have meant
cousin; and, although men were or
dercd to marry the wives of their de-
ceased brothers, the marriage was not
q real one, for the children Off amy of
the union were regarded rs children of
the deceased brother Such theolOgic
thimble-rigging as this is, | should
fancy, calculated to bring religion into
contempt,
But the opponents of the bill did not
trust to the theologic i 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 b. suspected. 1t
logically follows, therefore, that if we
are to assent to this doctrine the
daughters Of widowers must either be
sent to school or be brought up by
men.
A day or two after the division was
talking to an hereditary legislator who
had taken part in it. Vote against
it," he exclaimed, with every appear
ance of intense indignation OF
course | did! An infamous bill. |
would oppose it at any sacrifice" But
why do YOU feel so strongly about it,
my frienl?1 | asked. ''Srongly? Why.
BECAUSE | regard it as an utterly unjus-
tltiahle outrage to compel man to
marry woman whom he possibly de-
tests. This poor creature really
thought that the bill proposed to rem
der marriage with a deceased wife's
sister compulsory. l dare say that
there We're many more in the lobby
who had equally hazy views on the
subject.
l explained to this worthy peer-a
most ostimable man, but no biblical
scholar-that,- although no one now
proposes to force man into marriage
with his wife>s sister, the law of Moses
formerly compelled q man to 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
si2te4>. and that the opposition to the
present bill is founded upon the law of
Moses, the poor peer was utterly mys~
| titled. | am afraid that | have shaken
his faith ia the consistence of Noses
hui nothing could have BEEN further
from my intention.