The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1897-04-22
INGEasOLL ON DIVORCE.
People Who Hate Each Other Should
Not be Bound.

iioo PlSpdAtu d signed interview Oh his
peculiar views upon divorce, made pub
| lie IN recent lecture. 1t will be re-
| membered that he then expressed the
opinion that the law should grant di-
vorces to wives for the asking. Fol-
lowing is the interview:
Question 1.-The Herald would like
to have you give your ideas on divorce.
On last Sunday, in your lecture, you
said a few words on the subject, but
only a few. Do you think the laws
governing divorce ought to be changed?
Answer I've obtained our ideas
about divorce from the Hebrews-from
the New Testament and the Church. In
| the Old Testament woman is not con-
| sidered of much Importance. The
wife was the property of the husband
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour
| OK or his wife" In this command
ment the wife is put on an equality
with other property. So, under Ger
tain conditions, the husband could put
away his wife, but the wife could not
put away her husband.
In the New Testament there is little
| in favor of marriage, and really moth
| ing as II the rights of wives. Christ
said nothing in favor Of marriage, and
never married. So far as 1 know. none
of the Apostles had families. st. Paul
was opposed to marriage. and allowed
it only as a choice OF evils. In those
days it was imagined by the Christians
that the world was about to be pur-
flied by fire and that they would be
| changed into angels.
The early Christians were opposed to
,~irf
on woman as the source of all evil.
They did not believe in divorces. They
thought that if people loved each 9TH
er better than they did God, and got
married, they ought to be held to the
bargain, no matter what happened.
These fathers" were for the most
| part ignorant and hateful savages, and
had no more ideas of right and wrong
than wild beasts.
| The church insisted that marriage
was a sacrament, and that God in
some mysterious way joined husband
and wife in marriage-that he was one
of the parties to the contract and that
only death could end it,
OF course this supernatural view of
marriage is perfectly absurd If there
| be a God, there certainly have been
| marriages that He did not approve,
| and certain it is that God can have no
| interest in keeping husbands and wives
| together who never should have mar
ried
| Some preachers insist that Cod in
| stituted marriage in the Garden of
Eden. We now know that there was
no Garden of Eden, and that woman
was not made from the first mans
rib Nobody with any real sense be-
lieves- this now. The institution of
| marriage was not established by Je-
hovah. Neither was it established by
| Christ or any of his apostles.
In considering the question of di-
vorce, the supernatural should be dis
| carded. We should take into consid-
Grafton only the effect upon human be-
! ings. The gods should be allowed to
take care of themselves.
| Is it to the interest of a husband and
wife to live together after love has per-
| ished and when they hate each other?
Will this add to their happiness
Should a woman be compelled to re-
main the wife of a man who hates and
abuses her and whom she loathes? Has
society any interest in forcing women
to live with men they hate?
There Is no real marriage without
! love, and in the married state there is
no morality without love. A woman
| who remains the wife of a man whom
she despises, or does not love, corrupts
her soul. She becomes degraded, poll
| luted and feels that her flesh has been
soiled.
Under such circumstances a good
woman suffers the agonies of moral
death
| 1t may be said that the woman can
| leave her husband-that she is not
compelled to live in the same house, or
to occupy the same room.
If she has the right to leave, has she
the right to get a new home?
Should a woman be punished for hav-
| ing married? Women do not marry the
wrong man on purpose. Thousands of
mistakes are made--are these mistakes
sacred? Must they be preserved to
please God?
What good can it do God to keep
people married who hate each other?
What good can it do the community
to keep such people. together?
Question.-DO you consider marriage
a contract or sacrament?
| MISUNDERSTANDING is the most i'm
portant contract that human beings
| can make. No matter whether it is
called contract or a sacrament, it re-
mains the same
| A true marriage is a natural concord
or agreement of souls-a harmony in
which discord is not even imagined. 1t
| is mingling so perfect that only one
seems to exist. All other considerations
are lost. The present seems eternal.
In this supreme moment there is no
| shadow, or the shadow is as luminous
as light.
| When two beings thus love, thus
unite, this is the true marriage of soul
and soul. The idea of contract is lost.
Duty and obligation are instantly
changed into desire and joy and two
| lives, like uniting streams, flow on as
| one
This is real marriage.
Now. if the man turns out to be a
wild beast, if he destroys the happiness
of the wife, why should she remain
his victim?
If she wanted a divorce she should
have it. The divorce will not hurt
| God or the community AS matter
of fact, it viii save life.
No man not poisoned by supersti-
ton will object to the release of an
abused wife. In such a case only saw
ages can object to divorce. The man
who wants courts and legislatures to
force woman to live with him is
monster.
Question.-Do you believe that the di-
vorced should be allowed to marry