The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1910-02-08
EDITORIAL
Divorce-The Enemy of the Home.

The present day civilization has its three great
foundation pillars the Home, the School and the
I Church. Whatever attacks any one OF these three
Is the enemy of society and present day civilization
The modern divorce court Is the greatest enemy OF
] the home. The attack is vital, because it abso-
futcfy DESTROYS the home. tt separates tire parents
and orphans the children.
" For MAN. years DIVORCES in the United States
were few compared to the number OF marriages
Now for every twelve marriages in this country
there is one divorce. Some of these divorces are
morally justfable When the marriage bond has
been broken by aduhery the innocent party has
the right to demand divorce, although for the well
4 fare of children and social pride many women
hravcly bear an awful burden to the grave. There
is much TO he said in favor OF the view that divorce
should not be recognized by the law OF the land
OF course the law should permit separation from
bed and board for adultery, deserton, or lntoer-
able cruelty, but the general welfare OF society
would be better conserved by the prohibition OF di-
vorce altogether than by the shameful poygamy
that is carried on to-day under the form OF law.
There is still greater reason for the prohibition
of remarriage by either party to the divorce, and
greater reason still for prohibition OF the rcmar-
] rage Of The guilty. party. tt-thc law OF Virginia
were to decree that there should be no rcmarrlagc
OF either party in the of divorce even OF the
guilty party the number OF divorces would become
few indeed and the home and therefore society
would be upon firmer foundation.
The man or woman who has ruined one home
ruin another, to attempt to build up another
upon the foundation Of moral. if not of legal, adul
terry. The plea that is made, that if you do not
permit divorce and remarriage, you will encourage
adultery, has weight, for it is met by the acCu-
rate retort that it is better for adultery TO exist
under the rown Of the law than for it TO exist with
the approval Of the law If the law which Is the
expression of the will OF the people allows con-
fessed adulterer to marry again, because he has
been divorced for his crime, the law puts premium
ssrrrr adj nan n
that will bring about a divorce, so that he may
marry again under the sanction OF the law
s 1t is horrible state OF affairs and society Is
being poisoned at the very fountain head, and ur'
tue and fidelity are being superseded by aintes
and free love. Ii would be better for Virginia to-
day better for the virtue OF her sons and daughters
and the happiness and permanence of her homes II
absolute divorce not permitted, or ii 1t wcrt
permitted that the guilty party shouiu never bt
allowed to remarry. Then should ne live in adul
terry, he would do under the ban OF the law, anc
would be out of the pale of decent society. Now
he lives under the protection OF the law, and iaunt
3 himself as a leader OF society.
Holding these views on fhe subject of divorce
there is guessing as to the position OF The Viz
ginian on the bills concerning divorce now bctor,
4 the General Assembly. The Nirgnan is utterly
opposed to the bill introduced by Senator Rison
and it heartily favors the bill introduced by Delegate
Cooke The bill of Senator Rison is defended by
the Times Dispatch as simply ito give the right
Tor legal separation was adjudgcd in the wrong.
This Interpretation on the part o the Ilmcs-Dls
patch not warranted by the language oil the bill
The bill will give to the guilty party the right /,
come into court at the end of three years and t,
demand absolute divorce on furnishing satsiac
tory evidence that the separation has continued 10
three years and that no reconciliation has takel
place or is likely to take place, And then the doc
rs opened wide Tor any man TO make IT Impossible
for his wife to live with him in order that he ma,
ask for a separation, and at the end OF three year
he may get divorce and be free marry again
III the trainers Of the bill do not it have th
effect why do they amend it that it canno
possibly have that effect2 Why not agree to- ament
the bill that it shall provide that the guilty part,
after due notice has been given the innocent part,
may appear in court and produce satisfactory evi
dence of his innocence of the charges upon the bash
OF which the decree Of separation was granted?
The question will not down: Why was this bill
introduced? Who prepared it, and secured its in
PRODUCTION? Who has been leading the fight for it
PASSAGE
Concerning the bill of Delegate Cooke which for
bids the remarrage of any resident OF this State 10
period OF two years after securing divorce in thi
or any other State it is TO be said that it is dc
manded by common deCency. The present law
which allows remarriage Immediately after divorce
has shown very clearly that in many cases divorce
has been sought only for the purpose OF obtaining
the sanction OF the law TO crafty an unhoy passion
No harm will he done to society if persons who have
been freed from the responsibilities OF marriage b.
the divorce courts are allowed femarry agar
for two years. The passage OF this law will set
good example for other states and prevent many
divorce.