The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1913-07-05
Good-But Not Far Enough.

10 the ECitor OF The Times Dispatch:
Sir.--l have been greatly Interested
In what the papers have said about
/ the plan OF some Episcopal. and other
/ ministers, not TO perform the marriage
ceremony Tor q man until he has a
certificate saying he is free from dis
eases of immoral origin. 1t would be
interesting TO know why seven OF the
Episcopal ministers refused to sign
( the agreement. even after two of their
diocesan councils had recommended the
position. while only thirteen signed the
agreement. They and the ministers OF
that there was some real reason for
not signing such an agreement Surely
not one Of them. nor any other right
thinking human. could fail TO see the
vile wrong done an innocent woman
by being yoked 10 man with diseases
privilege TO be present at the confer
ence when the matter was discussed.
am sure their dissent was due simply
To a difference OF Judgment as to the
best method of reaching the object in
view.
have no desire or intention of criti-
ciTins the Episcopal councils nor the
ministers who have signed or have not
signed. But am minister. and so
the vital question faces me as ii does
others. I have not seen the agreement
have not heard the discussion. My
information has been gained from the
newspaper reports or the matter. For
ms own consideration. as well as for
the consideration OF others. ] may be
allowed TO utter few comments.
In the first place. If II is wrong to
perform the marriage ceremony to
unite a woman in marriage 10 man
who has disease of immoral origin.
why wait till October or January next
10 begin refusing to he party 10 such
wrong? If 1t is wrong. to perform
such a ceremony after October it is
wrong to-day. and ! would so sign, If
] signed at all The ministers can re-
or January, and if they ought to re-
fuse At all they should refuse to-day
Why wait several months to begin to
do the right? The wrongs done the
innocent woman and the future family
will he just as serious in those mar
rages which take place now as in
those which take place after October.
The law permits but does not force. the
individual minister to perform the
marriage ceremony. To sign that
agreement appears to commit the ono
who signs ii to perform such cere-
monies until the time specified. al
though in the very act of signing he
saws such maria Ges are wrong.
In tho second place, tho end in view
in all this agitation is certainly look
ing in the right direction. but it does
not go far enough Every o 9nd should
n state passes laws on the subject
doubt if the State could go further
than this agreement contemplates;
shall be freedom from physical dis
ease OF immoral origin. But ii APP
pears 10 me that when ministers,
and conferences, take n stand for a
single standard of morals they might
as well accept Gods standard and say
that there is no more right or reason
for a man TO be immoral than for the
woman to be immoral. God knows only
one standard OF morals. He says to
the man as we'll rs TO tho woman,
Keep myself pure" With God tho
question Ia not has the man caught
disease from impurity." He asks II
the man has been guilty OF imm morality.
The man may be rs morally vile as
possible and yet not be caught by dis
ease. Shall we say that corrupt
man Is 1T to marry pure woman just