The border vidette., 1931-01-10
1.-THE EASY DIVORCE e,LL"

1.-THE EASY DIVORCE eiLL"
The following communication
by State Senator G. G Crenshaw W
and appearing 10 Thursdays :
Nogales Daily Herald. will be OF
interest to readers of The Border
Vldette:
Editor. Nogales Daily Herald,
City.
After reading the resolution
adopted by the Ministerial asso
citation OF Nogales which was
published in your issue Of the
5th aud your editorial OF tls
same date, [ can not help bu.
make answer to both as both are
aimed at bill which [ propose
to introduce during the coming
session Of the legislature.
You headed both your editorial
and the news item containing
the Ministerial associations re
solution The Easy Divorce BIl".
II you we're 10 any sense fair 10
this matter you would not have
done this as the proposed legis
lation does not make divorce
easier in Arizona. 1t merely
shortens the time required by
law that one must live in
Arizona before a divorce may be
applied for.
The resolution adopted by
the Ministerial association pro
tests against the introduction
and enactment of the aforesaid
legislation on the following
grounds" Firstly because they
."believe it to be out of harmo
ny with the teachings OF Jesus
Christ. I must plead ignor
ance as to the teachings of Je
sus Christ relative to divorce
but would cite the ministers
to the holy bible, which is their
stock in trade. and which is
doubtless the greatest of all
books. It they will refer to
Deut. 24-1 they will find, if my
memory serves me correctly,
the following: When a man
has taken q wife and married
her and it comesh to pass that
she find not no favor in his eyes
because be has found some un
cleanness in her, then let him
write her a bill of enforcement
and give it in her hand and
send her out of his house. "
Deut. 24-2," And when she
has departed out of his house
she may 20 and be another
mans wife," In the above quot
ed scripture [ do not see time
limit set as to how long a man
must wait before be sends her
out of his house. It is a custom
in the United States and a law
10 most states that person
must be a citizen Of the state a
year before he or she is allowed
the privilege granted by the
Holy Scripture. 1t is the pur
pose of the proposed legislation
to shorten this time to 80 days.
II the ministers are opposing
this bill on the grounds of time
I don't see where they have a
leg to stand on.
Secondly they do not believe
that there is moral demand for
such legislation" I would ask
these gentlemen if they do be
lieve that there is moral de.
mand" that two people should
coha bitate who have ceased to
care for each other.
Thirdly. they believe that
it offers no relief to our own citi
zens on the subject of divorce
neither Goes it bring relief tc
others who do not possess sufi
cient money to establish citizen
ship in another state" Our
own citizens need no relief sc
far as securing a divorce is con
cerned as they have the privi
lege Of applying for divorce
at any time they desire it. As
to the poor people who have no'
sufficient money to esta blist
citizenship in another state
! These gentlemen had just as
we'll argue that tho state Of New
York should abolish the City ol
New York because some of Us
poor people can't afford q triE
there. There are poor people
|