The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1926-12-10
BY Ben Is. Lindsey


Famous Juvenile Court Judge of Denver
Copyright, 1926. NEA Service, Inc.
The former Duchess of Marlbor
ough is one of the loveliest> finest
women that it has ever been my
privilege to meet, but l understand
she was married when still a girl OF
II. We are frequently called upon
in our court to annul marriages
especially where the marriage is en-
tered into when the parties are un
der the age Of 81 years. The ordi'
nary contract of a person under Fl
is not considered binding because OF
minority. This has not always been
applied to marriage.
1t must be remembered, however,
that the Duke and the Duchess lived
together for a generation, and, as
understand, made nc application for
divorce until their children were
grown.
A LOVeless Marriage
1t is reported the annulment was
granted by the church at this late
date because it was a loveless mar
1iage. A marriage is loveless If the
parties do not love each other at the
time it is entered into, and it is
equally loveless IL that condition
arises at some other time.
In that event, hope that some
State will some day be brave enough
and wise enough to do what the
church already does, permit divorce
by mutual consent, but with the
avoidance of the silly proviso that
nae divorced must not marry again
- have any other love life.
We are having a terrific revolt Of
morals in this country. have writ
ten about it in 1.-THE Revolt Of Mod
ern Youth" and in a series called
1.-The Moral Revolt" now running in
a popular magazine.
Not n Marriage
This revolt is due, in part, to
what the church seems to have re-
cognized in the marriage Of the
Duke of Marlborough and ConsuelC
Vanderbilt, namely, that a marriage
without love is no marriage at all
1t is to be regretted that the
church is not so wise and conslderate
in the marriages Of ordinary people
as in the marriage OF this rich and
socially powerful couple. Without
intending 1t. OF course, the failure OF
organized orthodoxy to take the
sane and sensible view that the
church has taken in this exceptional
case, that it IS no marriage at all,
is responsible i'm this country for
much Sex improperly. In no coun-
try III 3.e than in America is there
a greater demand for liberty and
freedom to lead a monogamistic life
instead of the polygamous life that
orthodoxy is forcing on so many
people.
One Man for One Woman
I believe in the love Of one man
for one woman, and one woman for
one man. A certain organized or
thodoxy does not. 1t believes in
forms without substance; therefore
1t generally denies any such action
as that taken in the case Of this
materially wealthy and socially
powerful couple.
The result is that by the very
TEACHINGS of the church itself it has
much to promote a sort OF
pofygamy that the people are revolt
ing against in favor of a real monog
amy. The church teaches that @
married man who lusteth in his owr
heart after some other woman has
committed adultery. That so-callet
sin is very common in this country
with certain people, who are com
PEELED to remain married when they
do not love each other, since they
generally love some one else. ant
have a perfectly human attitude to
ward that some one else.
They are committing adultery be
cause the attitude Of organized or
thodoxy compels them to, since that
attitude will never prevent men and
women from being perfectly hui
man as nature intended they should
be, and in it's conflict with nature
and common sense, organized ortho
doxy is losing out.
It is, therefore, refreshing to find
at least one case where this rigid
attitude shows signs of weakening
Let us hope it will be equally sane
and sensible in the cases of those
less prominent and less powerful
as in our own court, where such
things are constantly done without