SOME OF THE CAUSES OF DIVORCE
Until our marriage laws are so adjusted that there are no unequal
marriages, the question of divorce always will be eminent. The ever
present agitation about uniform divorce laws and the divorce problem
cannot be settled until there are more stringent marriage laws. Trying
to settle the divorce question without first settling the marriage
question is like trying to keep chickens in a small yard surrounded by
enticing fields without first constructing an adequate fence.
Divorce is the concession of society to its inability to solve the
marriage problem. Anyone can get married! Mere children can meet on a
pleasure excursion and in a moment of fun or infatuation walk over to a
justice of the peace and be married. In some states not even a license
is necessary. A large proportion of the marriages in the world are
consummated without a proper consideration on the part of either bride
or groom as to the responsibilities of the marriage state. Many of the
marriages are made simply as a matter of convenience--in order to
inherit property, for social position or in a spirit of pique. Such
marriages are not natural marriages and are in violation of the right
spirit of the law of marriage. The much quoted saying, "What God hath
joined together, let no man put asunder," surely does not apply to these
marriages; for that very admission would be a condemnation of the wisdom
of God. He surely never would give his sanction to many of the marriages
contracted in a spirit of lust or of greed.
It is as impossible to keep mismated people together as it is to keep
chemical incompatibles together. No chemist would try to keep chlorate
of potash and sulphur together even if they did, by some accident,
happen to be in the same locality. It is just as impossible to keep two
incompatible people together and not expect an explosion. The law may
keep such people legally bound, but it cannot keep them so mentally or
physically. A prominent reformer is reported to have said that fully
one-third of the married population of New York City is unfaithful to
the physical obligation. And New York is not so very different from
other parts of the country. Many who are not physically disloyal are
mentally so. The no-divorce law will not prevent this condition of
affairs. Whites and blacks cannot marry legally in the South and yet in
some of the Southern states which have a no-divorce system a large
proportion of the colored population is _mulatto_.
Nature's laws tend to provide an indissoluble union, but divorce
represents the protest of the individual against the inharmonious
relations he ignorantly or thoughtlessly has assumed.
Even those who are the loudest in their condemnation of divorce could
not sanction marriage under certain conditions. I wonder if these people
know that many of the divorces that are granted under the head of
cruelty really are granted because one of the parties has contracted one
of the loathsome black plagues. No humane person could condemn a woman
for refusing to live with a man and take the almost certain risk of
contracting a disease that would mean her death or mutilation, or for
refusing to bear children that would come into the world an object of
disgust and horror or which would die before being born. Some of these
reformers say, "Let her live separately from him but not marry again."
That would be condemning an innocent woman to a childless life because
she had been so unfortunate as to become bound to a dissipated man.
Another underlying but often unknown factor in many of the divorce cases
is sterility. In some states the law says this is a just cause for
divorce, because the future of the nation depends on the production of
children. Because a woman, in her ignorance, has married a man who is
incapable of producing healthy offspring, due to his having "sown his
wild oats," should not be a reason why she should be condemned to forego
the pleasures of motherhood. Because a man has married a woman who is
sterile or who selfishly refuses to bear children should not be a reason
why he should be denied an heir.
Again, it is unfair to the future generation to compel mismated couples
to live together. Children brought into the world under such conditions
are bequeathed a heritage that will have a demoralizing effect upon
their whole after life. Children, who every day hear quarrels and
strife between those they should honor, lose something of the beauty of
life; they become hardened and quarrelsome. Of course these divorces
must not be granted promiscuously; for in bringing children into the
world, parents assume an obligation that cannot be neglected. In
considering a separation, the parents' first thought should be, "What is
best for my children?" The duty to the children should be settled first.
Then the question comes, "What is my duty to my wife or my husband?" for
the act of making any contract imposes certain obligations. The
individual circumstances must settle what these obligations are. Last
comes the question, "What is my duty to myself? I was placed in this
world to make the best use of my life. Am I doing it or is it impossible
to do so unless I change my environment and associates?" The conscience
of the individual should be the guide now.
Were there more frankness and sincerity in discussing the problems and
conditions of married life before marriage much unhappiness would be
avoided and there would be fewer divorces; for many engaged people would
thus discover they were mismated before the marriage ceremony. To reach
a complete understanding is the main purpose of the engagement period.
Marriage is not a lottery nor a game of chance to the man and woman
entering it with a knowledge of sex relations and with absolute mutual
honesty.