The Washington herald., 1912-04-08
BY FRANCES sHAFFER.

For many years there has been more
or less rebellious protest against that
little word obey in the marriage serv-
ice. and every once in a while some one
comes along who takes her promises seri-
ously and who feels unwilling to go
through a form of words to which she
cannot subscribe in spirit.
And now II seems that ths Archbishop
of Canterbury objected to the announce
ment that at an approaching marriage
In English society the bride was willing
to promise to love and honor It'll death
us do part" but would not consent to
obey; and he Is quoted as saying that
the omission of the word would make
the ceremony Illegal.
Apart from the church end OF 1t and
without any desire to attack ceremony
which for ages has borne the stamp Of
its approval. Il really seems time that
the institution of marriage should deal
with the realities OF life as We find
them.
And the realities Of life to-day hardly
warrant the continuance of that word
'obey." any more than they do that
meaningless clause:
with all my worldly goods I thee
endow"
to any one?
Why should a man surrender all claim
to his worldly gods?'
And the unreasoning feature of II Is
that the wife renders obedience no more
than the husband gives up his all on his
wedding day.
Times Have Changed.
There was a time in the history OF
men and women when a wife, in point
of law, was little more than a chattel.
and while the word obey was as in
congruous and unlovely then in its ap-
plication to husband and wife as II Is
to-day. there was a background OF
reality
But in our times a marriage that full
fils its promise OF happiness must keep
all notions Of superiority beautifully sub
dued before the more hopeful reign Of
equality.
And. though IL may be regarded as
nothing but a shadow and the shadow
happens TO offend the sense of the eter-
nal fitness OF things as some folk see II.
why not make the marriage ceremony In
harmony with the spirit of to-day?
Do you realize the difference between
a home where the wife and mother is
recognized by each member as living
on exactly the same plane as the hus-
hand and father. intellectually and other
wise. and tho other type Of home where
the wife and mother must defer to
higher will that Is supreme where mat
ters Of family import are concerned?
And do you realize that the mother
influence wanes when the small folk
note that II Is father" who comes first,
he who decides. he who controls by an
attitude of supremacy? For there are
still some homes where the spirit of the
word obey still fingers, and they are
not the ideal homes, not the homes from
which the broadest types OF men and
women emerge.
For IL Is only as women are clear
seeing. free in thought. Intellectual, and
conscious of their own worth that they
can carry their boys and girls along
with them to a point where they look
TO womanhood as typifying something
big, true. and worth while, just as they
do TO manhood.
Good Cleaning Up Needed.
1t is not a pleasant thing to admit.
and now that the DAG OF Superiority
has quite largely gone by, one does not
care for any relics or reminders OF less
comfortable times. and that is the rea-
son II seems well 10 clean UP all around.
That is why statute books are being
examined more closely than heretofore
and why broad-minded, justice-Ioving
folk are asking for the repeal of laws
that tell unpleasant stories of other
times
Doubtless IL is more or less a dead
letter, but why should any State in our
great country sti1l carry along a law per-
mitting a man TO control his wIfe's
earnings? 1t Is contrary to the senti-
ment that alone makes marriage a
beautiful institution and should be rel
egated to a dead, an outlived past Yet