The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-04-21
DIVORCE LAWS.
Are the Indiana Courts Wrong or Was
the Christ wrongs

To the Editor OF the indianapolis Journal:
1t would hardly be proper to open the
columns of the Journal TO criticisms OF
every vagary tina finds utterance in the
pulpits of the city. but when so distin-
guished a man as Rev. DR.. Stanley. rector
Of the Christ Episcopal Church., brings so
railing an accusation against the laws OF
the State as he did I'm his sermon on d.
vorce April 13 a decent self-respect demands
a notice of It. He is reported I'm the Jour-
nal of the 18th as saying: eff the courts OF
InGiana are right in granting divorces for
any other cause than unchastity, then the
Christ was wrong" This is a sweeping
assertion when 1t is m that those
who enacted the laws of the State claim
TO be Christians and TO be as earnestly de-
voted to the teachings of the Christ as the
learned rector can be. OF course. the as
ssrtion Is founded upon the assumption
that the Christ said that divorces NAV he
granted only or account OF unchastity.
whereas He never said anything OF the
kind or anything from which il may be
deduced by any recognized law OF ex-
egesis. To understand the purport of what
He did say one must bear I'm mind the
question He was answering and the social
conditions that made such a question per-
tinent; and TO do this we must consider
the law I'm the case and the current adj
ministration OF that law. The law itself
was such an abomination that the Christ.
In referring TO IL. said IL was not ideal.
but a compromise TO adjust law TO existing
conditions. Because of the hardness OF
your hearts" things are tolerated in the
law that are not right abstractly-a COM
pliment to the wisdom Of Moses as a law
giver which some modern would-be law
makers would do well 10 seek. The law
was based on the prevailing opinion OF the
times that women were inferior to men
and had no inherent rights that men were
bound to respect. Hence IL provided that
whenever, for any cause. the man became
tired Of any one OF his wives all he had to
do was TO give her her walking papers. and
she had 10 go. These papers were called a
writing of divorcement. No civil or &C.
clesiastical tribunal had anything 10 do
with IL, II was all In the hands OF the
tyrant husband. The law reads. I'm the
authorized version: Whenever she found
no favor I'm his eyes because he had found
some uncleanness In her" Two hundred
and seventy-hve years later. when the
leaven OF Christianity had elevated woman
nearer TO her proper level. this harsh con-
dition was somewhat softened by the re-
vised version so as to read: Because he
hath found some unseemly thing In her,
but I'm any case IL left the tyrant husband
the sole judge of what TO him was "un-
seemly." She might be sickly. or lazy, or
cross. or a breeder Of disturbance among
his other wives: she could make no defense,
there was no court 10 investigate or pass
upon the facts In the case, and this was the
law when the Pharisees asked the Christ:
lis ii lawful for A man 10 put away his
wife for every cause?' HIS answer was
an emphatic no" except for unchastity.
NO question: was dSktl dH 10 the iAEnA OL
the state 10 grant a divorce for other
causes. and hence no answe was given. 10
Is unthinkable that the Christ ever meant
TO say that the marriage relation is so in
dissOluble as TO compel a m 10 remain
In wedlock with a man who. by dissipation
and vice, has transformed a loving husband
into a mere brute If he only remains chaste-
Such a law would compel her 10 lead a life
Of legalized adultery, for love and respect
and companionship. the indispensable elc-
ments OF "A happy home. cannot exist. 10
would be for the Christ 10 proclaim that the
lowest Instincts OF animal life are the su-
preme elements OF humanity. and that IN
the animal instincts are held sacred all
the nobler dement's may be ignored Such
a Christ with such ar abominable creed
can never win I'm cultured society. The
very thought OF such a dogma is horrible.
no matter what popes and priests may say.
One thing I'm this answer H. worthy OF
note. For the first time in history the ali
sOlute equality OF woman with man Is an
nounced. She may with equal right send an
unchaste husband adrift. an unmarried
man so far as she Is concerned. In the law
or Moses only the man could give a writing
of enforcement and send the woman with
some unseemly thing" away. In the law Of
the Christ the woman has as much a right
to give divorce papers as the man. This is
the germ from which has grown the better
so that everywhere I'm proportion 20 the
Christian culture OF a people. the equality
OF the sexes Is recognized. The Christ was
right and the State is right. Let DIR. Stan.
ley and all such as ne attack the loose
marriage laws. and divorces for any cause
will be much fewer. L. L. SEE
indianapolis. April is.