Evening star., 1927-03-28

Wholeheartedly for divorce and
| plenty of it. and with very definite
| reasons for being so, is the Rev. John
| Haynes Holmes, Of the Community
| Church, New York City.
AS every one knows. Mr.. Holmes
uses no gloves in handling vital topics.
| but leaves finger and thumb prints
generously about, that all may iden-
tify him. For he is sincere to the
core-and you can take him or leave
| him alone!
.'It's hard" said Mr.. Holmes, ito
answer categorically the question do
you approve of divorce without mrs,
| coming back with What is dfvorceI
| 1t is almost like asking What is God?'
LAS theologians differ as to what
| God is, SO do States differ as to what
divorce is. You are divorced in one
State and not in another. You are
forbidden to remarry in one State and
free to do so by moving few feet
across the dividing line. You must
have this cause for divorce in one
State and that cause in the State next
door. In South Carolina you cannot
divorce at all-and that is barbarism!
"I am far from advocating laws or
such looseness that they encourage
license. But, whatever may have been
adequate forms of marriage In Biblical
times are outworn today, and must
be recast to suit modern knowledge.
The earth was once thought to be
fiat-nust we go on thinking so?"
Divorce obtained by collusion, 1.e.,
both parties agreeing to stage"
situation to comply with difficult or
unjust law, would not win Mr..
Holmes approval. Nor would divorce
based on trickery or whin. In other
words, divorce for sincere reasons Is
a remedy for many human ills, while
divorce dishonesty used adds to their
sin.
them goes on the incisive minister
OF Community Church. 81 enthusi-
astically approve of 1t. Why, I am
even inclined to agree with the zest-
full George Bernard Shaw--that IL the
persons concerned want it, they
should have 1t without being required
to give any other reason.
"I would allow divorce for incom-
patibility. There are certain people
who simply cannot live together. II
need not be the fault of either one of
them. They are fundamentally un-
suited. But each might be happy, sue
cessful and helpful with another mate.
''I believe in divorce" he continues,
''because / know human nature to be
imperfect. 1t is inevitable that a GER
tain number of marriages must be
mistakes, because this holds good in
every relation of life. It cannot be
otherwise while we remain human.
provision should be made in every
thing for a certain percentage of fail
ure In life-partnerships that are dis
astrous divorce is the only way out.
1t is painful; it is often a less than
perfect cure. But, as in surgical oper-
ations, we do our humane best--and
take the chances. / cannot believe
people should be held to a relationship
that brings them no happiness and
destroys their usefulness"
When we asked Mr.. Holmes what
| he thinks of the Mex York State law,
| which provides no ground for divorce
save infidenity, he grew more en-
| phatic still.
| 1.-THE New York law" said he, "is a
very bad law. There are many just
causes for divorce besides misconduct.
Bad personal habits, for example, such
as intoxication and bestiality. Then
| there is the curse Of social disease.
What horror that the law should not
grant freedom in such q situation!
Cruelty and intolerable treatment
| should be ample reason for divorce.
No woman should be forced to live in
marital relationship with a man who