Evening journal., 1921-07-07
French SPLIT ON
MARRIAGE CODE
Some Think Clause Requir-
ing Them to Obey Hus-
bands is Servile
OTHERS REFUSE
TO GO TO ALTAR

PARIS, July IA husband
owes his wife protection. A woman
owes obedience 10 her husband"
These two sentences figures in the
marriage code Of French laws and
around them a fierce battle now
RACES in all society circles in France.
The trouble came when Senator
Martin. a supporter Of women's suf-
frage. introduced an amendment in
the Senate to have the second sem
tence suppressed or modified. NJ.
Martin considers the sentence as
too humiliating to women and thinks
that such terms are unnecessary in
the marriage laws. lie believes
that the affection a woman has for
her husband should suffice TO call
for obedience without the law treat
ing married women as though they
were school children.
Opinions Of well-known French
women have been sought on the
subject and here are some of their
answerr:
Madame Miropolsky, a French
woman by birth and an extremely
capable woman lawyer. says:
Article 213 (the one containing
the above two clauses) is quite
harmless. It carries no penalties.
There are happy married couples
who believe in il. and. on the other
hand. there are happy married
couples who are quite OF a contrary
disposition. Law rs powerless TO fix
the rules OF marital intimacy"
Nile. Fanny Heldy. Of the Paris
Opera, says;
III the susband is really superior
10 his wife then the latter obeys
him out Of plasure and not because
the Jaw says so. II the contrary is
the case-and it is not rare to find
il so-then no law on earth will
make a woman the blind-fold slave
Of her husband. AS for husbands
protection. we are quite capable Of
protecting ourselves. and l think we
have proved that Article 2l3
should certainly be banished."
The celebrated doctress, Mile.
Pelletier, is much Of the same opin-
ion.
Although have never had hus-
band" she said. Il also find Article
213 very humiliating for women.
Our country is very much behind
4 the times. In Russia the general
emancipation of women is far ad-
vanced. There marriage has been
4 socialized-not women. All do
. mestic work is done by professionals
4 and the education Of children IS
given by the State. A woman can
4 thereby live intelligently and inde-
. pendently."
| Secretary Of a section Of the
Union for Women's Suffrage, Nine.
4 Bach-Cremieux. finds the incrim-
mated article absolutely iniquitous."
ITO think" she says, "that mar
4 ried woman is considered incapable
' Of properly conducting herself! Mar
+ riage is an association; there is no
4 chief. In practice. happily, the law
3 does not exist. But on principle 1
<think It should be abolished"
Il Mile. Madelein Roch, the famous
n French uagedienne, would merely
%change Article 213.
There is no need to suppress the
.article." she said. simply change
HI around and make IL read that
Husband owes obedience TO his wife
Nine. Colette. a well-known writer
Z who has been married twice, when
Masked for her opinion, replied;
II had forgotten all about it, al
fthough Il must have been read TO me
#twice. AS such text never existed
in my married life 1 feel absolutely
+. Indifferent whether It is suppressed
<+or not"
Even sporting circles were not
SHARED in the search for opinions on
f a subject which is interesting France
& 30 greatly. and Mile. Helene Du-
trieu. Frances foremost woman
aviator, thinks:
woman is made to obey man.
ion't think the law so badly con-
E structed and after all it is so simple
hot TO get married II you do not
81 want to accept the inconvenience as
4 well as the advantages Of married
n lfe."