It is, of course, very much better that marriage should be as permanent
as possible, and any society is obviously justified in bringing any
moral pressure to bear to make people realize the seriousness of the
relationship and the importance of keeping it permanent when possible.
But it is certainly no part of the right or duty of society to use force
to compel people to remain in the marriage relationship, when it becomes
so repugnant to them that the conditions of the marriage cannot be
continued. All that society has the right then to demand is that all the
obligations which have been assumed shall be honorably fulfilled. But a
relationship registered in mistake or under delusion should be subject
to revision, and, with certain safeguards, to dissolution, otherwise the
standard of morality is degraded and marriage itself is brought to
contempt, and can be used, as indeed too often it is, as a cloak of
protection for every kind of immorality.
But it is just here that the religious objector to divorce-reform steps
in. Marriage, he declares, is not only a social institution, it is a
sacrament of the Church, "Those whom God has joined together no man may
put asunder," _therefore divorce must be made as difficult as possible_.
As I have said before, I can respect the view that rejects divorce and
regards the marriage bond as indissoluble, but I can have nothing but
contempt for this attitude of weak and shuffling compromise. Much has
been said on the matter, therefore I say little. I shall not attempt to
urge the causes for which divorce should, or should not, be granted;
for, as will appear directly, I want a much simpler and more radical
reform: also I hold it folly to try to convince the self-blinded. I only
ask the reader to make sure that he (or perhaps more probably she)
really believes that the partners in the marriages that come to the
divorce courts _were joined by God_, and is willing to follow the
argument to its logical conclusion. Are they willing, for instance, to
say that a woman or a man may not put aside the marriage if one of the
two is a lunatic, or a hopeless drunkard, or an habitual criminal, or a
degenerate, or the victim of a disease which can be communicated to the
offspring? Are they willing to go with our ecclesiastical advisers, who
seek to maintain marriages, which may be the cause of perpetuating
disease and crime; the bringing into the world of the children of
drunkards, of epileptics, of syphilitics and of lunatics?
Stop a moment and think what this must mean to the society in which we
live. Can it be considered seriously that the continuance of marriage in
such cases as these can by any juggling be made right--anything except
the most blind-eyed folly and sin?