MARRIAGE.
WHAT IS MARRIAGE?
Marriage is in law the conjugal union of man with woman, and is the
only state in which cohabitation is considered proper and
irreprehensible. The marriage relation exists in all Christian
communities, and is considered the most solemn of contracts, and,
excepting in Protestant countries, it is regarded as a sacrament. In
some countries its celebration falls under the cognizance of
ecclesiastical courts only, but in the United States it is regarded as
merely a civil contract, magistrates having, equally with clergymen,
the right to solemnize it, though it is usually the practice to have
it performed by a clergyman and attended with religious ceremonies.
Marriage, as a legalized custom, is of very ancient origin. It is
doubtful whether even the primitive man was not governed in the
intercourse of the sexes by some recognition of the union being
confined to one chosen one. No greater promiscuity can certainly be
supposed than occurs in the lower animals, where pairing is the law.
The nobler animals, as the lion, elephant, etc., never have but one
mate, and even in case of death do not remate. As men advanced, civil
codes were inaugurated and certain protection given to the choice of
the parties. The earliest civil code regulating marriage, of which we
have any account, was that of Menes, who, Herodotus tells us, was the
first of the Pharaohs, or native Egyptian kings, and who lived about
3,500 years before Christ. The nature of his code is not known.
The Biblical account extends further back, but it does not appear that
any laws existed regulating marriage, but each one was allowed to
choose his wife and concubines, and it is supposed that common consent
respected the selection. Next, Moses gave laws for the government of
marriage among the Israelites. The early Greeks followed the code of
Cecrops, and the Romans were also governed in their marital relations
by stringent laws. In fact, the necessity of some law regulating the
intercourse between the sexes must have become very apparent to all
nations or communities at a very early period. It certainly antedates
any legal regulations with regard to the possession of property. It is
very probable that every community did by common consent afford to
each male one or more females, and the presumption is that such choice
or assignment, as the case may have been, was respected by common
agreement as inviolable. It is doubtful if ever promiscuity was the
law or privilege with any community of men, even in their primitive
state. The possession of reason is antagonistic to such a belief; and
man was most probably elevated above the beast by the faculty of
reason in this respect as in others. Promiscuous indulgence is always
evidence of debauchery, and a departure from that natural course which
is prompted by an innate sense of propriety characterizing mankind.
The law is very indefinite with regard to what constitutes a legal
marriage. It is an unsettled question, both in England and this
country, whether a marriage solemnized by customary formalities alone
is legal, or if one characterized by the mere consent of the parties
is illegal. The latter has been held as legal in some instances in
both countries. Kent, in his "Commentaries," lays down the law that a
contract made so that either party recognizes it from the moment of
contract, and even not followed by cohabitation, amounts to a valid
marriage, and also that a contract to be recognized at some future
period, and followed by consummation, is equally valid. It is
unfortunate that the law is so undecided in this respect. The
decisions arrived at, for or against, were not dependent upon any
recognized law, but seem to be influenced by the character of the
cases, either for favor or discountenance. As long as the law
recognizes cohabitation legal only in marriage, it seems to me that if
consummated under consent of the parties to bear marital relations
with each other, or promise of marriage, the act should be
unhesitatingly pronounced as the equivalent of a valid marriage in all
instances. If cohabitation is only a marital prerogative, the law
should not stultify itself by recognizing it as possible to occur in
any other relation. If either of the parties is married, the law
defines it as adultery, and very properly defines the punishment. It
is necessary to the progress of the age that some such principle
should be recognized in common law so as not to subject the decision
of the question to the individual opinion of any judge. It would at
once obviate the confusion of sentiment now held in regard to it and
besides arrest the decision in test cases from mere caprice of the
tribunal. It is certainly as correct a principle as any in common law,
and would, in its operations as a statute law, be free from injustice,
and capable of doing much good.
POLYGAMY--WHAT IT IS.
Polygamy is a state in which a man has at the same time more than one
wife. It has existed from time immemorial, especially among the
nations of the East. The custom was tolerated by the laws of Moses,
and, in fact, no positive injunction against it is found in the whole
of the Old Testament. It is questionable whether more than one was
recognized as the _bona fide_ wife, the others simply being wives by
right of concubinage. But if polygamy was in its strictest sense the
legal custom, it soon grew unpopular, for no trace of it is met in the
records of the New Testament, where all the passages referring to
marriage imply monogamy as alone lawful. The custom has been almost
universal in the East, being sanctioned by all the religions existing
there. The religion of Mohammed allows four wives, but the permission
is rarely exercised except by the rich.
In Christian countries polygamy was never tolerated, the tenets of the
Church forbidding it, though Charlemagne had two wives, and Sigbert
and Chilperich also had a plurality. John of Leyden, an Anabaptist
leader, was the husband of seventeen wives, and he held that it was
his moral right to marry as many as he chose.
In England the punishment of polygamy was originally in the hands of
the ecclesiastics. It was considered a capital crime by Edward I., but
it did not come entirely under the control of the temporal power until
a statute of James I. made it a felony, punishable by death. George
III. made it punishable by imprisonment or transportation for seven
years.
It is the offspring of licentiousness, and its advocates merely wish
to give legal color to licentious habits. Every student of history
will find that as soon as a nation became morally depraved, polygamy
was practiced, and that monogamy was the rule in all countries truly
civilized.
Polygamy has, of late years, been most shamefully revived and
outrageously practiced in face of law by the Mormons. They claim it as
a religious duty, and defend the system by claiming that unmarried
women can in the future life reach only the position of angels who
occupy in the Mormon theocratic system a very subordinate rank, being
simply ministering servants to those more worthy, thus proclaiming
that it is a virtual necessity of the male to practice the vilest
immorality in order to advance the female to the highest place in
heaven.
Mormonism is a religion founded by Joseph Smith, who was born in
Sharon, E. V., Dec. 23rd, 1805, and killed at Carthage, Ill., June
27th, 1844.
It is a most singular fact that a sect like the Mormons could have
been established in a country peopled with such law-abiding people as
of the United States, and maintain a system of marriage, antagonistic
to the law and religion of the land. Neither could they have done so
if they had not possessed two great virtues, temperance and industry.
It is to be hoped that the legal process now instituted for its
abolition will effectually remove the blot from the national
escutcheon.
The "Oneida Communists" are essentially polygamic, although they have
no marriage system. They do not marry, and ignore all marriage codes.
Cohabitation is under no restrictions between the sexes. Marriage is
also not observed among the "Shakers."
MONOGAMY--WHAT IT IS.
This is the conjugal union of a male with one female only. We have
seen that monogamy was coequal with civilization, and that most
probably the majority of the males had but one wife, even among
polygamic nations. Universal polygamy is practically impossible, the
scarcity of females and the poverty of the males forbidding it. The
excess of females is not so great in any country as to allow to each
male more than one wife, except the male portion is depleted by long
and disastrous wars. Monogamy has done more for the elevation of the
female than any other custom of civilization. The rich could only
afford to practice polygamy, and should the poor imitate the example
it would necessarily subject the wives to a state of serfdom. In the
economy of nature it is designed that the male should be the protector
of the female, and that by his exertions the provision of food and
raiment should be secured. In polygamous nations the female has not
attained that social state that she has reached in countries where the
male is entitled to but one female as his wife. Woman's highest sphere
is not in the harem or zenana, but in that dignified state in which
she is the sole connubial companion of but one man. It is debasing to
her nature, and subversive of her dignity in the rank of humanity, to
make her the equal only with others in the marital union with one
male. She becomes only the true, noble and affectionate being when she
is conscious of a superiority to others in the connubial companionship
with her accepted one. The female bird chirps but for her single mate,
and she is pugnaciously monogamic, as well as virtuous, allowing
neither male or female at or near her home. The spirit of independence
she gains by being the mate of but one male gains for her the victory
over the intruders.
The physical and mental welfare of the female is also dependent upon
monogamic marriage. We have demonstrated that temperate indulgence is
conducive to the sanitary condition of the sexes, and that absolute
abstinence is opposed to the designs of nature. It is also evident
that the male is not endowed with greater power, vigor or capacity
than the female; therefore, confinement or limitation of the congress
to the companionship of one male with one female, as in monogamic
marriage, gives the healthy balance to the marital union. The
polygamic husband must either suffer from the consequences of
excessive indulgence or his wives from poverty of sexual
gratification; probably both would be the case.
POLYANDRY
is equally as proper as polygamy, yet it never in the history of man
obtained a foothold. The system is more logical than polygamy, because
the wife's dependence would be distributed between two or more
husbands, in which case she would be better insured against poverty
and her support would be guaranteed by greater probability.
We have now described the history and aspect of the two customs, and
will conclude the subject by remarking that a man is morally and
physically entitled to but one wife, and that a plurality is a great
wrong to the female and in total opposition to the ordinance of
nature. Wherever polygamy is the custom the female is held in slavish
subjection. It only prospers in proportion to the ignorance of the
sex. Intelligent and civilized woman will always rebel against such
debasement and servitude.
MARRIAGE CUSTOMS.
It would probably be interesting to many to describe the marriage
ceremonies observed by different nations, but to enter into a
descriptive detail would occupy too much space. It is sufficient to
say that while some wives are wooed and won, others are bought and
sold; while in some countries the husband brings the wife to his home,
in others, as in Formosa, the daughter brings her husband to her
father's house, and he is considered one of the family, while the
sons, upon marriage, leave the family forever. In civilized countries,
the ceremonies are either ministerial or magisterial, and are more or
less religious in character; while in others, less civilized, the
gaining of a wife depends upon a foot-race, in which the female has
the start of one-third the distance of the course, as is the custom
in Lapland. In Caffraria, the lover must first fight himself into the
affections of his ladylove, and if he defeats all his rivals she
becomes his wife without further ceremony. Among the Congo tribes, a
wife is taken upon trial for a year, and if not suited to the standard
of taste of the husband, he returns her to her patents. In Persia, the
wife's status depends upon her fruitfulness; if she be barren, she can
be put aside. In the same country they have also permanent marriages
and marriages for a certain period only--the latter never allowed to
exceed ninety years.
In fact, the marriage ceremonies differ in nearly all countries. To us
some may appear very absurd, and yet our customs may be just as
amazing to them. It matters but little how a conjugal union is
effected so long as sanctioned by law or custom and it obligates the
parties, by common opinion, to observe the duties pertaining to
married life.
THE BASIS OF A HAPPY MARRIAGE.
The state of conjugal union should be the happiest in the whole of the
existence of either man or woman, and is such in a congenial marriage.
Yet in the history of very many marriages contentment or happiness is
palpably absent and an almost insufferable misery is the heritage of
both parties. It is therefore important that previous to the marital
union the parties should take everything into consideration that
fore-shadows happiness after marriage, as well as everything
calculated to despoil conjugal felicity.
The first requisite of congenial marriage is love. Without being
cemented by this element the conjugal union is sure to be uncongenial.
It is the strongest bond, the firmest cord, uniting two hearts
inseparably together. Love for the opposite sex has always been a
controlling influence with mankind. It is the most elevating of all
the emotions and the purest and tenderest of all sentiments. It exerts
a wonderful power, and by its influence the grandest human actions
have been achieved. Of what infinite worth it is to either sex to be
compensated with a worthy and satisfying love, and how ennobling to
the impulses and actions it is to bestow the sentiment upon one worthy
to receive and willing to return.
LOVE IS THE MAINSPRING
that regulates the harmony of conjugal life, and without it there is a
void in the machinery, productive only of jars, convulsive movement,
and a grating and inharmonious action. The soul yearns for love and
to love, and unless the desire is compensated human life is a blank
and becomes a purposeless existence. Love ever stimulates the good and
suppresses the bad, if kept in a proper channel and guided by pure
affections.
Another requisite of a happy marriage is health. No person has a moral
right to engage in wedlock who cannot bring to his partner the
offering of good health.
Another consideration is _evenness of temper_. In the wooing days
everyone is a lamb, and only becomes the howling wolf after marriage.
Circumstances that ruffle the temper in the presence of the intended
are but like the harmless squib, but would become like the explosive
torpedo in his or her absence or in after-marriage. Quarreling caused
by matrimonial differences is the most frequent cause of infelicity,
and most of it is caused by an innate irate temper of either husband
or wife.
The _tastes_ should not be dissimilar. Some of them may be
unimportant, but others are a fruitful source of disagreement. The
social wife will never be contented with the unsocial husband, and the
gay husband, though his gayety may not be commendable, will always
accuse his wife if she lacks a social disposition to a great extent.
The religious wife will never excuse a tendency to irreligion in her
husband, and though he may be far from being immoral, she is unhappy
if he does not participate in her devotions. The one devoted to
children will never be happy with one having a natural repugnance for
them. In this way we might multiply facts illustrative of the
importance of an investigation into the similarity of taste previous
to marriage. Great love, however, overcomes almost every obstacle.
THE PARTIES SHOULD BE NEARLY OF ONE AGE.
The husband should be the elder. The union of the old husband to the
young wife, or the reverse, is seldom a happy one. It is seldom that
such a marriage occurs in which the incentive is not the wealth of
either of the parties.
Marriages are usually contracted to gratify various desires, as love,
fortune or position. The results are more truthfully stated by an
eminent divine in the following:
"Who marries for love, takes a wife; who marries for fortune, takes a
mistress; who marries for position, takes a lady."
To a man there is but one choice that he can rationally make, a
marriage of love. My female readers, I hope, will decide rather to wed
a husband than the master or the elegant gentleman.
A little foresight, a little prudence, and a little caution will
prevent in most cases the entrance into a marriage which, by the very
nature of the alliance, is certain to be an unhappy and improper one.