The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1904-10-23

/ point IL ~ primarily III liisllutfoH W
4 God, and we have no quarrel even VIII
i those who recognize 1t ms n sacrament OF
the church But Tho Times-Dispatch =
4 dealing with n condition; IS dealing Will
the cold facts. We have traced the his
j tory OF tho marriage law and shown It's
evolution We have shown that marriage
in the tinted States Is to.day rceos nized
as civil contract and that sucl, con-
/ tract cannot be made binding except
| through the sanction Of law. II may be
/ n usurpation on the part OF government,
! hut It Is a fact which cannot be disputed
and which mus. be recognized that The
| government not only assumes to make the
| terms and conditions under which such
| contracts may be made between man anu
| woman, but assumes also tho prerogatiVn
| OF annulling them through court proceed
ings rho government does not concedc
thai Tho church has any power over such
contracts, either IN the making OF them
or III anhulling them. 1t raises no objec-
ton to a religious service IN marking tho
contract and In Virginia and other States
ministers OF the gospel are designated 70
perform the ceremony. But tho ceremony
is merely Incidental Marriage is in law
a civil contract. and not mere cere'
,nony OF the church.
There Is reason for this. and n suft1-
cicnt reason. The government recognizes
tho marriage relation, the fpnily, as the
very foundation of. nll civilized society,
and therefore encourages wedlock. But
If marriage wore purely a function Of the
church. man and woman could not marry
except through the medium OF the church,
and that would DO contrary to public
policy The present system has been
evolved through much discussion and
tribulatIon, and 1t has been found to be
the best The government does not inter-
fero III any way with the functions OF
the church. AS We have said, It raises
no objection to the religious ceremony
In this connection. and raises no objection
10 any regulations hiatt the church may
make for its own members. But It does
provide a means by which marriage may
be contaminated independently OF the
church, and It makes all such contracts
binding. whether or not they be constm-
mated with religious service.
Mr.. RIdout seems to say that the whole
system should be revolutlonized; that the
church alone should have the authority
to soennizc marriage, to make It indis-
soluble or at least to prescribe the terms
unler which divorce may be obtained.
We shall not discuss with him that propo-
sition for 1t Is, In all respects purely
visionary. The system willsremain a. IT
is until there is a radical change In public
sentiment. Therefore we have said that
Tie church can do little to prevent divorce
except through the agency of religious IN
struction. BY this we mean that the
church can do little in this direction
except to educate public sentiment UP TO
n recognition of the sanctity of tile mar
rage relation But the word little" in
this connection Is misleading The church
can do vast deal to educate the people,
and, after all, law is but the creature OF
public sentiment When public sentiment
is ripe for 1t. there Will be no difficulty
in enacting and enforcing law which
VII make marriage lifelong contract.
The church will not he permitted TO take
this question out of law but 1t may ca
ert a powerful and benehcent influence in
shaping legislation.
- a. d.