The Bridgeport evening farmer. [volume] (Bridgeport, Conn.) 1866-1917, 1913-10-30
BALDWIN BELIEVES
CHURCH CAN REFORM
ABUSE OF MARRIAGE
Governor Takes Exception to
Churches Interference
With Civil Laws.
Believes Catholic Church Has
the Right Attitude Towards
Legislatures in Respect
to Reforms in Law.

sibi1ities of the Church Respecting
| Marriages, delivered here to-day be-
fore the National Council of Congre-
gational Churches by Governor Sim
| con e. Baldwin of onnecticut. The
speaker urged the enactment by the
various states Of legislation which
will enable ministers of religion to de-
termine whether or not parties to the
marriage contract are fit before they
perform the. ceremony. He thought
! it time that ministers ceased to mar
ry couples without any knowledge OF
| their fitness, but he did not believe
that in order to prevent such mar
riages the church should attempt to
influence legislation. He thought
that in this respect the Roman Catho-
lie Church had the right idea
''It contents itself mainly with look
ing after the individually" he said,
ttand in laying down rules for its own
members, as to matter of religion; not
in trying to get them to work for
rules to govern the conduct of others.
cit does not seem to me the duty Of
1 the churches, as such, or of their
members, as such, to urge upon Iegis-
| latures the Improvement of our mar
riage laws. The efforts of the church
for the betterment of society are to
| be accomplished through its influence
in the formation and reformation of
individual character. 1t has often
| been wrong in trying to extend, in
this direction or in that. the domain of
statute law In one generation it has
not infrequently thus built up what in
the next generation it has striven to
pull down"
| After quoting statistics and review
ing the awful consequences of mar
riage between persons wholly unfit to
bring healthy children into the world,
the speaker said that some method
ought to be devised whereby the min
lister can learn of these conditions, and
1CiT
form the parents of either party of
the danger.
.'The minister can hardly himself
institute or direct an inquiry said
| Governor. Baldwin. t'He can, how-
ever, decline to perform the ceremony,
unless he personally knows the parties
well, or is satisfied that the woman
or her friends have made proper in
lXestigation. Certainly he should new
| er perform it for those whom he
i relation
Contrasting the practice in this re-
! spect between ancient and modern
times, the speaker said:
| cit often happens that a hasty mar
/ riage is agreed on, in a state where
| a previous notice of some days is re-
| quired, and has not, perhaps cannot
| be given A trip to another. state, in
such a case, ought not, ordinarily, to
be suffered to work an evasion of the
l
ssThe Protestant churches, in re-
fusing to recognize marriage as a sac
rament, have left their ministers a
free hand, as long as they keep with
in the law of the jurisdiction. Where
either party to a divorce is, under
the decree of the court, disqualified
from marrying again during the life
of the other, an attempt to do SO,
whether in the state granting the di-
vorce, or elsewhere, ought not to be
/ countenanced by any minister. A stat
ute is of force only, in the state where
! it is enacted, and therefore a mar
rage in state other than that where
| the judgment was rendered, is, at
common law, legally valid. 1t is,
however, something contrary to that
spirit of comfy and mutual respect
which should always characterize the
/ dealings of the authorities of one
jurisdiction with regard to the orders
of those of any other. To. get all the
facts, no minister ought to marry a
divorced person. without first read
ing a copy of the judgment.
ttBut in most of our American states
a divorce for adultery does not entail
a prohibition of remarriage.
tJesus Christ accepted the rules of
EciviI government which he found es-
ltab1ished- He was a subject of the
Roman empire. He was for giving to
Caesar what belonged to Caesar.
Rome originally committed the pow
er of divorce at will to the Roman
husband. Later either party could
dissolve the marriage relation at
pleasure No judicial decree, or ac-
ton of any public authority was re-
quired. The Hebrew, in this respect,
if not a Roman citizen, followed the
Mosaic law. When Jesus spoke of the
husbands putting away his wife for
adultery and nothing less, he must
have had in mind the power of the
man under the then existing usages
of Hebrew society and religion Di-
vorce was private right 1t pro
ceeded from no public authority To
the Jewish husband, who could put
away his wife for any cause, at his
own discretion, he said, that he mus
Ito be a follower of His@use this
power only in case of adultery. He
did not assume to pass upon what the
Estate might do,
I'm modern times, the state denies
any right of the husband to divorce
at will. It regards marriage as a
7 civil contract It believes it to be
best to allow the contract to be dis
solved for certain causes by an impair
tiaI public tribunal. In taking this
attitude, it seems to me wholly with
in its rights If so, a minister need
not scruple, subject to one possible ex-
ception, to remarry persons who have
been divorced. where the civil laws do
not forbid. The possible exception is,
of course, where adultery occurred
during the previous marriage. The
reasoning of Christ seems tp me to
Gov such cases, but the letter of his
words does not.
ga minister is never bound to marry
every one who asks it. Here he does
not occupy the position of a civil Off
Ger of the state chosen, as such, for
| the discharge of a particular function.
A public officer must perform his Of
fee. He has assumed that obligation
! h 0nSitinn I1Cf
act or resign. But minister is Civ
en- the right to celebrate marriage not