{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-6:divorce",
  "slug": "divorce",
  "title": "Divorce",
  "subtitle": "Replies to Cardinal Gibbons, Bishop Potter, and others.",
  "excerpt": "Ingersoll's symposium contribution on divorce — the principle, the practice, and the replies of Cardinal Gibbons, Bishop Potter, Justice Bradley, and Senator Dolph.",
  "year": 1889,
  "volume": 6,
  "category": "Discussion",
  "author": {
    "name": "Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "wikidata": "Q360326",
    "viaf": "44331023"
  },
  "isPartOf": {
    "title": "The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "edition": "Dresden Edition",
    "publisher": "C. P. Farrell",
    "year": 1900
  },
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/",
  "url": "https://thegreatagnostic.com/works/divorce/",
  "wordCount": 6764,
  "body": "A LITTLE while ago the North American Review propounded the following\nquestions:\n\n1. Do you believe in the principle of divorce under any circumstances?\n\n2. Ought divorced people to be allowed to marry, under any\ncircumstances?\n\n3. What is the effect of divorce on the integrity of the family?\n\n4. Does the absolute prohibition of divorce, where it exists, contribute\nto the moral purity of society?\n\nThese questions were answered in the November number of the Review,\n1889, by Cardinal Gibbons, Bishop Henry C. Potter and myself. In\nthe December number, the same questions were again answered by W. E.\nGladstone, Justice Bradley and Senator Dolph. In the following month\nMary A. Livermore, Amelia E. Barr, Rose Terry Cooke, Elizabeth Stuart\nPhelps and Jennie June gave their opinions upon the subject of divorce;\nand in the February number of this year, Margaret Lee and the Rev.\nPhillip S. Moxom contributed articles upon this subject.\n\nI propose to review these articles, and, first, let me say a few words\nin answer to Cardinal Gibbons.\n\nReply to Cardinal Gibbons\n\nThe indissolubility of marriage was a reaction from polygamy. Man\nnaturally rushes from one extreme to the other. The Cardinal informs us\nthat \"God instituted in Paradise the marriage state, and sanctified it;\"\nthat \"he established its law of unity and declared its indissolubility.\"\nThe Cardinal, however, accounts for polygamy and divorce by saying that,\n\"marriage suffered in the fall.\"\n\nIf it be true that God instituted marriage in the Garden of Eden, and\ndeclared its unity and indissolubility, how do you account for the fact\nthat this same God afterwards upheld polygamy? How is it that he forgot\nto say anything on the subject when he gave the Ten Commandments to\nMoses? How does it happen that in these commandments he puts women on an\nequality with other property—\"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife,\nor thy neighbor's ox, or anything that is thy neighbor's\"? How did it\nhappen that Jacob, who was in direct communication with God, married,\nnot his deceased wife's sister, but both sisters, while both were\nliving? Is there any way of accounting for the fact that God upheld\nconcubinage?\n\nNeither is it true that \"Christ reasserted in clear and unequivocal\nterms, the sanctity, unity, and indissolubility of marriage.\" Neither is\nit true that \"Christ gave to this state an added holiness and a dignity\nhigher far than it had 'from the beginning.'\" If God declared the\nunity and indissolubility of marriage in the Garden of Eden, how was it\npossible for Christ to have \"added a holiness and dignity to marriage\nhigher far than it had from the beginning\"? How did Christ make marriage\na sacrament? There is nothing on that subject in the new Testament;\nbesides, Christ did apparently allow divorce, for one cause at least.\nHe is reported to have said: \"Whosoever putteth away his wife, save for\nfornication, causeth her to commit adultery.\"\n\nThe Cardinal answers the question, \"Can divorce from the bonds of\nmarriage ever be allowed?\" with an emphatic theological \"NO,\" and as a\nreason for this \"no,\" says, \"Thus saith the Lord.\"\n\nIt is true that we regard Mormonism as a national disgrace, and that\nwe so regard it because the Mormons are polygamists. At the same time,\nintelligent people admit that polygamy is no worse in Utah, than it was\nin Palestine—no worse under Joseph Smith, than under Jehovah—that\nit has been and must be forever the same, in all countries and in all\ntimes. The Cardinal takes the ground that \"there are two species of\npolygamy—simultaneous and successive,\" and yet he seems to regard\nboth species with equal horror. If a wife dies and the husband marries\nanother woman, is not that successive polygamy?\n\nThe Cardinal takes the ground that while no dissolution of the marriage\nbond should be allowed, yet for grave causes a temporary or permanent\nseparation from bed and board may be obtained, and these causes he\nenumerates as \"mutual consent, adultery, and grave peril of soul or\nbody.\" To those, however, not satisfied with this doctrine, and who are\n\"so unhappily mated and so constituted that for them no relief can come\nsave from absolute divorce,\" the Cardinal says, in a very sympathetic\nway, that he \"Will not linger here to point out to such the need of\nseeking from a higher than earthly power, the grace to suffer and be\nstrong.\"\n\nAt the foundation and upon the very threshold of this inquiry, one thing\nought to be settled, and that is this: Are we to answer these questions\nin the light of human experience; are we to answer them from the\nstandpoint of what is better here, in this world, for men and\nwomen—what is better for society here and now—or are we to ask: What\nis the will of God? And in order to find out what is this will of God,\nare we to ask the church, or are we to read what are called \"the sacred\nwritings\" for ourselves? In other words, are these questions to be\nsettled by theological and ecclesiastical authority, or by the common\nsense of mankind? No one, in my judgment, should marry for the sake of\nGod, and no one should be divorced for the sake of God, and no man and\nwoman should live together as husband and wife, for the sake of God.\nGod being an infinite being, cannot be rendered unhappy by any action of\nman, neither can his well-being be increased; consequently, the will of\nGod has nothing whatever to do with this matter. The real question then\nmust be: What is best for man?\n\nOnly the other day, a husband sought out his wife and with his own hand\ncovered her face with sulphuric acid, and in a moment afterward she was\nblind. A Cardinal of the Catholic Church tells this woman, sitting in\ndarkness, that it is her duty to \"suffer and be strong\"; that she must\nstill remain the wife of this wretch; that to break the bond that binds\nthem together, would be an act of sacrilege. So, too, two years ago, a\nhusband deserted his wife in Germany. He came to this country. She was\npoor. She had two children—one a babe. Holding one in her arm, and\nleading the other by the hand, she walked hundreds of miles to the shore\nof the sea. Overcome by fatigue, she was taken sick, and for months\nremained in a hospital. Having recovered, she went to work, and finally\ngot enough money to pay her passage to New York. She came to this city,\nbringing her children with her. Upon her arrival, she commenced a\nsearch for her husband. One day overcome by exertion, she fainted in the\nstreet. Persons took pity upon her and carried her upstairs into a room.\nBy a strange coincidence, a few moments afterward her husband entered.\nShe recognized him. He fell upon her like a wild beast, and threw\nher down the stairs. She was taken up from the pavement bleeding, and\ncarried to a hospital.\n\nThe Cardinal says to this woman: Remain the wife of this man; it will be\nvery pleasing to God; \"suffer and be strong.\" But I say to this woman:\nApply to some Court; get a decree of absolute divorce; cling to your\nchildren, and if at any time hereafter some good and honest man offers\nyou his hand and heart, and you can love him, accept him and build\nanother home, to the end that you may sit by your own fireside, in your\nold age, with your children about you.\n\nIt is not true that the indissolubility of marriage preserves the virtue\nof mankind. The fact is exactly the opposite. If the Cardinal wishes to\nknow why there are more divorces now than there were fifty or a hundred\nyears ago, let me tell him: Women are far more intelligent—some of\nthem are no longer the slaves either of husbands, or priests. They are\nbeginning to think for themselves. They can see no good reason why\nthey should sacrifice their lives to please Popes or Gods. They are\nno longer deceived by theological prophecies. They are not willing to\nsuffer here, with the hope of being happy beyond the clouds—they want\ntheir happiness now.\n\nReply to Bishop Potter\n\nBishop Potter does not agree with the Cardinal, yet they both study\nsubstantially the same bible—both have been set apart for the purpose\nof revealing the revelation. They are the persons whose duty it is to\nenlighten the common people. Cardinal Gibbons knows that he represents\nthe only true church, and Bishop Potter is just as sure that he occupies\nthat position. What is the ordinary man to do?\n\nThe Cardinal states, without the slightest hesitation, that \"Christ made\nmarriage a sacrament—made it the type of his own never-ending union\nwith his one sinless spouse, the church.\" The Bishop does not agree\nwith the Cardinal. He says: \"Christ's words about divorce are not to be\nconstrued as a positive law, but as expressing the ideal of marriage,\nand corresponding to his words about eunuchs, which not everybody can\nreceive.\" Ought not the augurs to agree among themselves? What is a man\nwho has only been born once, to do?\n\nThe Cardinal says explicitly that marriage is a sacrament, and the\nBishop cites Article xxv., that \"matrimony is not to be accounted for\na sacrament of the gospel,\" and then admits that \"this might seem to\nreduce matrimony to a civil contract.\" For the purpose of bolstering up\nthat view, he says, \"The first rubric in the Form of Solemnization of\nMatrimony declares that the minister is left to the direction of those\nlaws in every thing that regards a civil contract between the parties.'\"\nHe admits that \"no minister is allowed, as a rule, to solemnize the\nmarriage of any man or woman who has a divorced husband or wife still\nliving.\" As a matter of fact, we know that hundreds of Episcopalians do\nmarry where a wife or a husband is still living, and they are not turned\nout of the Episcopal Church for this offence. The Bishop admits that the\nchurch can do very little on the subject, but seems to gather a little\nconsolation from the fact, that \"the penalty for breach of this law\nmight involve, for the officiating clergyman, deposition from the\nministry—for the offending man or woman exclusion from the sacraments,\nwhich, in the judgment of a very large number of the clergy, involves\neverlasting damnation.\"\n\nThe Cardinal is perfectly satisfied that the prohibition of divorce is\nthe foundation of morality, and the Bishop is equally certain that \"the\nprohibition of divorce never prevents illicit sexual connections.\"\n\nThe Bishop also gives us the report of a committee of the last General\nConvention, forming Appendix xiii of the Journal. This report, according\nto the Bishop, is to the effect \"that the Mosaic law of marriage is\nstill binding upon the church unless directly abrogated by Christ\nhimself, that it-was abrogated by him only so far that all divorce was\nforbidden by him excepting for the cause of fornication; that a woman\nmight not claim divorce for any reason whatever; that the marriage of a\ndivorced person until the death of the other party, is wholly forbidden;\nthat marriage is not merely a civil contract but a spiritual and\nsupernatural union, requiring for its mutual obligations a supernatural\ndivine grace, and that such grace is only imparted in the sacrament of\nmatrimony.\"\n\nThe most beautiful thing about this report is, that a woman might not\nclaim divorce for any reason whatever. I must admit that the report is\nin exact accordance with the words of Jesus Christ. On the other hand,\nthe Bishop, not to leave us entirely without hope, says that \"there is\nin his church another school, equally earnest and sincere in its zeal\nfor the integrity of the family, which would nevertheless repudiate the\ngreater part of the above report.\"\n\nThere is one thing, however, that I was exceedingly glad to see, and\nthat is, that according to the Bishop the ideas of the early church are\nclosely connected with theories about matter, and about the inferiority\nof woman, and about married life, which are no longer believed. The\nBishop has, with great clearness, stated several sides of this question;\nbut I must say, that after reading the Cardinal and the Bishop, the\nearnest theological seeker after truth would find himself, to say the\nleast of it, in some doubt.\n\nAs a matter of fact, who cares what the Old Testament says upon this\nsubject? Are we to be bound forever by the ancient barbarians?\n\nMr. Gladstone takes the ground, first, \"that marriage is essentially a\ncontract for life, and only expires when life itself expires\"; second,\n\"that Christian marriage involves a vow before God\"; third, \"that no\nauthority has been given to the Christian Church to cancel such a vow\";\nfourth, \"that it lies beyond the province of tie civil legislature,\nwhich, from the necessity of things, has a veto within the limits of\nreason, upon the making of it, but has no competency to annul it when\nonce made\"; fifth, \"that according to the laws of just interpretation,\nremarriage is forbidden by the text of Holy Scripture\"; and sixth, \"that\nwhile divorce of any kind impairs the integrity of the family, divorce\nwith remarriage destroys it root and branch; that the parental and the\nconjugal relations are joined together by the hand of the Almighty\nno less than the persons united by the marriage tie, to one another.\"\nFirst. Undoubtedly, a real marriage was never entered into unless the\nparties expected to live together as long as they lived. It does not\nenter into the imagination of the real lover that the time is coming\nwhen he is to desert the being he adores, neither does it enter into the\nimagination of his wife, or of the girl about to become a wife. But how\nand in what way, does a Christian marriage involve a vow before God?\nIs God a party to the contract? If yes, he ought to see to it that the\ncontract is carried out. If there are three parties—the man, the woman,\nand God—each one should be bound to do something, and what is God\nbound to do? Is he to hold the man to his contract, when the woman has\nviolated hers? Is it his business to hold the woman to the contract,\nwhen the man has violated his? And what right has he to have anything\nto say on the subject, unless he has agreed to do something by reason of\nthis vow? Otherwise, it would be simply a nudum pactum—a vow without\nconsideration.\n\nMr. Gladstone informs us that no authority has been given to the\nChristian Church to cancel such a vow. If he means by that, that God has\nnot given any such authority to the Christian Church, I most cheerfully\nadmit it.*\n  • Note.—This abrupt termination, together with the\n    unfinished replies to Justice Bradley and Senator Dolph,\n    which follow, shows that the author must have been\n    interrupted in his work, and on next taking it up concluded\n    that the colloquial and concrete form would better serve his\n    turn than the more formal and didactic style above employed.\n    He thereupon dictated his reply to the Gibbon and Gladstone\n    arguments in the following form which will be regarded as a\n    most interesting instance of the author's wonderful\n    versatility of style.\n    This unfinished matter was found among Col. Ingersoll's\n    manuscripts, and is given as transcribed from the\n    stenographic notes of Mr. I. N. Baker, his secretary,\n    without revision by the author.\n\nJustice Bradley\n\nCardinal Gibbons, Bishop Potter, and Mr. Gladstone represent the\ntheological side—that is to say, the impracticable, the supernatural,\nthe unnatural. After reading their opinions, it is refreshing to read\nthose of Justice Bradley. It is like coming out of the tomb into the\nfresh air.\n\nSpeaking of the law, whether regarded as divine or human or both,\nJustice Bradley says: \"I know no other law on the subject but the moral\nlaw, which does not consist of arbitrary enactments and decrees, but\nis adapted to our condition as human beings. This is so, whether it\nis conceived of as the will of an all-wise creator, or as the voice of\nhumanity speaking from its experience, its necessities and its higher\ninstincts. And that law surely does not demand that the injured party\nto the marriage bond should be forever tied to one who disregards\nand violates every obligation that it imposes—to one with whom it is\nimpossible to cohabit—to one whose touch is contamination. Nor does\nit demand that such injured party, if legally free, should be forever\ndebarred from forming other ties through which the lost hopes of\nhappiness for life may be restored. It is not reason, and it can not\nbe law—divine, or moral—that unfaithfulness, or willful and obstinate\ndesertion, or persistent cruelty of the stronger party, should afford no\nground for relief.......If no redress be legalized, the law itself will\nbe set at defiance, and greater injury to soul and body will result from\nclandestine methods of relief.\"\n\nSurely, this is good, wholesome, practical common sense.\n\nSenator Dolph\n\nSenator Dolph strikes a strong blow, and takes the foundation from under\nthe idiotic idea of legal separation without divorce. He says: \"As there\nshould be no partial divorce, which leaves the parties in the condition\naptly described by an eminent jurist as 'a wife without a husband and\na husband without a wife,' so, as a matter of public expediency, and\nin the interest of public morals, whenever and however the marriage\nis dissolved, both parties should be left free to remarry.\" Again:\n\"Prohibition of remarriage is likely to injure society more than the\nremarriage of the guilty party;\" and the Senator says, with great force:\n\"Divorce for proper causes, free from fraud and collusion, conserves the\nmoral integrity of the family.\"\n\nIn answering the question as to whether absolute prohibition of divorce\ntends to morality or immorality, the Senator cites the case of South\nCarolina. In that State, divorces were prohibited, and in consequence\nof this prohibition, the proportion of his property which a married man\nmight give to his concubine was regulated by law.\n\nThe Argument Continued, in Colloquial Form\n\nThose who have written on the subject of divorce seem to be divided into\ntwo classes—the supernaturalists and the naturalists. The first class\nrely on tradition, inspired books, the opinions of theologians as\nexpressed in creeds, and the decisions of ecclesiastical tribunals. The\nsecond class take into account the nature of human beings, their own\nexperience, and the facts of life, as they know them. The first class\nlive for another world; the second, for this—the one in which we live.\n\nThe theological theorists regard men and women as depraved, in\nconsequence of what they are pleased to call \"the fall of man,\" while\nthe men and women of common sense know that the race has slowly and\npainfully progressed through countless years of suffering and toil. The\npriests insist that marriage is a sacrament; the philosopher, that it is\na contract.\n\nThe question as to the propriety of granting divorces cannot now be\nsettled by quoting passages of Scripture, or by appealing to creeds,\nor by citing the acts of legislatures or the decisions of courts. With\nintelligent millions, the Scriptures are no longer considered as of the\nslightest authority. They pay no more regard to the Bible than to the\nKoran, the Zend-Avestas, or the Popol Vuh—neither do they care for the\nvarious creeds that were formulated by barbarian ancestors, nor for the\nlaws and decisions based upon the savagery of the past.\n\nIn the olden times when religions were manufactured—when priest-craft\nand lunacy governed the world—the women were not consulted. They were\nregarded and treated as serfs and menials—looked upon as a species of\nproperty to be bought and sold like the other domestic animals. This\nview or estimation of woman was undoubtedly in the mind of the author of\nthe Ten Commandments when he said: \"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's\nwife,—nor his ox.\"\n\nSuch, however, has been the advance of woman in all departments of\nknowledge—such advance having been made in spite of the efforts of the\nchurch to keep her the slave of faith—that the obligations, rights\nand remedies growing out of the contract of marriage and its violation,\ncannot be finally determined without her consent and approbation.\nLegislators and priests must consult with wives and mothers. They must\nbecome acquainted with their wants and desires—with their profound\naversions* their pure hatreds, their loving self-denials, and, above\nall, with the religion of the body that moulds and dominates their\nlives.\n\nWe have learned to suspect the truth of the old, because it is old, and\nfor that reason was born in the days of slavery and darkness—because\nthe probability is that the parents of the old were ignorance\nand superstition. We are beginning to be wise enough to take into\nconsideration the circumstances of our own time—the theories and\naspirations of the present—the changed conditions of the world—the\ndiscoveries and inventions that have modified or completely changed\nthe standards of the greatest of the human race. We are on the eve of\ndiscovering that nothing should be done for the sake of gods, but all\nfor the good of man—nothing for another world—everything for this.\n\nAll the theories must be tested by experience, by facts. The moment a\nsupernatural theory comes in contact with a natural fact, it falls to\nchaos. Let us test all these theories about marriage and divorce—all\nthis sacramental, indissoluble imbecility, with a real case—with a fact\nin life.\n\nA few years ago a man and woman fell in love and were married in a\nGerman village. The woman had a little money and this was squandered by\nthe husband. When the money was gone, the husband deserted his wife and\ntwo little children, leaving them to live as best they might. She had\nhonestly given her hand and heart, and believed that if she could only\nsee him once more—if he could again look into her eyes—he would\ncome back to her. The husband had fled to America. The wife lived four\nhundred miles from the sea. Taking her two little children with her, she\ntraveled on foot the entire distance. For eight weeks she journeyed, and\nwhen she reached the sea—tired, hungry, worn out, she fell unconscious\nin the street. She was taken to the hospital, and for many weeks fought\nfor life upon the shore of death. At last she recovered, and sailed for\nNew York. She was enabled to get just enough money to buy a steerage\nticket.\n\nA few days ago, while wandering in the streets of New York in search of\nher husband, she sank unconscious to the sidewalk. She was taken into\nthe home of another. In a little while her husband entered. He caught\nsight of his wife. She ran toward him, threw her arms about his neck,\nand cried: \"At last I have found you!\" \"With an oath, he threw her to\nthe floor; he bruised her flesh with his feet and fists; he dragged her\ninto the hall, and threw her into the street.\"\n\nLet us suppose that this poor wife sought out Cardinal Gibbons and the\nRight Honorable William E. Gladstone, for the purpose of asking their\nadvice. Let us imagine the conversation:\n\nThe Wife. My dear Cardinal, I was married four years ago. I loved\nmy husband and I was sure that he loved me. Two babes were born. He\ndeserted me without cause. He left me in poverty and want. Feeling that\nhe had been overcome by some delusion—tempted by something more than\nhe could bear, and dreaming that if I could look upon his face again he\nwould return, I followed-him on foot. I walked, with my children in my\narms, four hundred miles. I crossed the sea. I found him at last—and\ninstead of giving me again his love, he fell upon me like a wild beast.\nHe bruised and blackened my flesh. He threw me from him, and for my\nproffered love I received curses and blows. Another man, touched by\nthe evidence of my devotion, made my acquaintance—came to my\nrelief—supplied my wants—gave me and my children comfort, and then\noffered me his hand and heart, in marriage. My dear Cardinal, I told\nhim that I was a married woman, and he told me that I should obtain a\ndivorce, and so I have come to ask your counsel.\n\nThe Cardinal. My dear woman, God instituted in Paradise the marriage\nstate and sanctified it, and he established its law of unity and\ndeclared its indissolubility.\n\nThe Wife. But, Mr. Cardinal, if it be true that \"God instituted\nmarriage in the Garden of Eden, and declared its unity and\nindissolubility,\" how do you account for the fact that this same God\nafterward upheld polygamy? How is it that he forgot to say anything on\nthe subject when he gave the Ten Commandments to Moses?\n\nThe Cardinal. You must remember that the institution of marriage\nsuffered in the fall of man.\n\nThe Wife. How does that throw any light upon my case? That was long\nago. Surely, I was not represented at that time, and is it right that I\nshould be punished for what was done by others in the very beginning of\nthe world?\n\nThe Cardinal. Christ reasserted in clear and unequivocal terms, the\nsanctity, unity and indissolubility of marriage, and Christ gave to this\nstate an added holiness, and a dignity higher far than it had from the\nbeginning.\n\nThe Wife. How did it happen that Jacob, while in direct communication\nwith God, married, not his deceased wife's sister, but both sisters\nwhile both were living? And how, my dear Cardinal, do you account for\nthe fact that God upheld concubinage?\n\nThe Cardinal. Marriage is a sacrament. You seem to ask me whether\ndivorce from the bond of marriage can ever be allowed? I answer with an\nemphatic theological No; and as a reason for this No, I say, Thus saith\nthe Lord. To allow a divorce and to permit the divorced parties, or\neither of them, to remarry, is one species of polygamy. There are two\nkinds—the simultaneous and the successive.\n\nThe Wife. But why did God allow simultaneous polygamy in Palestine?\nWas it any better in Palestine then than it is in Utah now? If a wife\ndies, and the husband marries another wife, is not that successive\npolygamy?\n\nThe Cardinal. Curiosity leads to the commission of deadly sins.\nWe should be satisfied with a Thus saith the Lord, and you should be\nsatisfied with a Thus saith the Cardinal. If you have the right to\ninquire—to ask questions—then you take upon yourself the right of\ndeciding after the questions have been answered. This is the end of\nauthority. This undermines the cathedral. You must remember the words of\nour Lord: \"What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.\"\n\nThe Wife. Do you really think that God joined us together? Did he at\nthe time know what kind of man he was joining to me? Did he then know\nthat he was a wretch, an ingrate, a kind of wild beast? Did he then know\nthat this husband would desert me—leave me with two babes in my arms,\nwithout raiment and without food? Did God put his seal upon this bond\nof marriage, upon this sacrament, and it was well-pleasing in his sight\nthat my life should be sacrificed, and does he leave me now to crawl\ntoward death, in poverty and tears?\n\nThe Cardinal. My dear woman, I will not linger here to point out to\nyou the need of seeking from a higher than an earthly power the grace to\nsuffer and be strong.\n\nThe Wife. Mr. Cardinal, am I under any obligation to God? Will it\nincrease the happiness of the infinite for me to remain homeless\nand husbandless? Another offers to make me his wife and to give me a\nhome,—to take care of my children and to fill my heart with joy. If I\naccept, will the act lessen the felicity or ecstasy of heaven? Will it\nadd to the grief of God? Will it in any way affect his well-being?\n\nThe Cardinal. Nothing that we can do can effect the well-being of God.\nHe is infinitely above his children.\n\nThe Wife. Then why should he insist upon the sacrifice of my life? Mr.\nCardinal, you do not seem to sympathize with me. You do not understand\nthe pangs I feel. You are too far away from my heart, and your words\nof consolation do not heal the bruise; they leave me as I now leave\nyou—without hope. I will ask the advice of the Right Honorable William\nE. Gladstone.\n\nThe Wife. Mr. Gladstone, you know my story, and so I ask that you will\ngive me the benefit of your knowledge, of your advice.\n\nMr. Gladstone. My dear woman, marriage is essentially a contract for\nlife, and only expires when life itself expires. I say this because\nChristian marriage involves a vow before God, and no authority has been\ngiven to the Christian Church to cancel such a vow.\n\nThe Wife. Do you consider that God was one of the contracting parties\nin my marriage? Must all vows made to God be kept? Suppose the vow was\nmade in ignorance, in excitement—must it be absolutely fulfilled? Will\nit make any difference to God whether it is kept or not? Does not an\ninfinite God know the circumstances under which every vow is made? Will\nhe not take into consideration the imperfections, the ignorance, the\ntemptations and the passions of his children? Will God hold a poor girl\nto the bitter dregs of a mistaken bargain? Have I not suffered enough?\nIs it necessary that my heart should break? Did not God know at the time\nthe vow was made that it ought not to have been made? If he feels toward\nme as a father should, why did he give no warning? Why did he accept\nthe vow? Why did he allow a contract to be made giving only to death the\nannulling power? Is death more merciful than God?\n\nMr. Gladstone. All vows that are made to God must be kept. Do you not\nremember that Jephthah agreed to sacrifice the first one who came out of\nhis house to meet him, and that he fulfilled the vow, although in doing\nso, he murdered his own daughter. God makes no allowance for ignorance,\nfor temptation, for passion—nothing. Besides, my dear woman, to\ncancel the contract of marriage lies beyond the province of the civil\nlegislature; it has no competency to annul the contract of marriage when\nonce made.\n\nThe Wife. The man who has rescued me from the tyranny of my\nhusband—the man who wishes to build me a home and to make my life worth\nliving, wishes to make with me a contract of marriage. This will give my\nbabes a home.\n\nMr. Gladstone. My dear madam, while divorce of any kind impairs the\nintegrity of the family, divorce with remarriage destroys it root and\nbranch.\n\nThe Wife. The integrity of my family is already destroyed. My husband\ndeserted his home—left us in the very depths of want. I have in my\narms two helpless babes. I love my children, and I love the man who has\noffered to give them and myself another fireside. Can you say that this\nis only destruction? The destruction has already occurred. A remarriage\ngives a home to me and mine.\n\nMr. Gladstone. But, my dear mistaken woman, the parental and the\nconjugal relations are joined together by the hand of the Almighty.\n\nThe Wife. Do you believe that the Almighty was cruel enough, in my\ncase, to join the parental and the conjugal relations, to the end that\nthey should endure as long as I can bear the sorrow? If there were three\nparties to my marriage, my husband, myself, and God, should each be\nbound by the contract to do something? What did God bind himself to\ndo? If nothing, why should he interfere? If nothing, my vow to him\nwas without consideration. You are as cruel and unsympathetic, Mr.\nGladstone, as the Cardinal. You have not the imagination to put yourself\nin my place.\n\nMr. Gladstone. My dear madam, we must be governed by the law of\nChrist, and there must be no remarriage. The husband and wife must\nremain husband and wife until a separation is caused by death.\n\nThe Wife. If Christ was such a believer in the sacredness of the\nmarriage relation, why did he offer rewards not only in this world, but\nin the next, to husbands who would desert their wives and follow him?\n\nMr. Gladstone. It is not for us to inquire. God's ways are not our\nways.\n\nThe Wife. Nature is better than you. A mother's love is higher and\ndeeper than your philosophy. I will follow the instincts of my heart. I\nwill provide a home for my babes, and for myself. I will be freed from\nthe infamous man who betrayed me. I will become the wife of another—of\none who loves me—and after having filled his life with joy, I hope to\ndie in his arms, surrounded by my children.\n\nA few months ago, a priest made a confession—he could carry his secret\nno longer. He admitted that he was married—that he was the father of\ntwo children—that he had violated his priestly vows. He was unfrocked\nand cast out. After a time he came back and asked to be restored into\nthe bosom of the church, giving as his reason that he had abandoned his\nwife and babes. This throws a flood of light on the theological view of\nmarriage.\n\nI know of nothing equal to this, except the story of the Sandwich Island\nchief who was converted by the missionaries, and wished to join the\nchurch. On cross-examination, it turned out that he had twelve wives,\nand he was informed that a polygamist could not be a Christian. The next\nyear he presented himself again for the purpose of joining the church,\nand stated that he was not a polygamist—that he had only one wife. When\nthe missionaries asked him what he had done with the other eleven he\nreplied: \"I ate them.\"\n\nThe indissoluble marriage was a reaction from polygamy. The church has\nalways pretended that it was governed by the will of God, and that for\nall its dogmas it had a \"thus saith the Lord.\" Reason and experience\nwere branded as false guides. The priests insisted that they were in\ndirect communication with the Infinite—that they spoke by the authority\nof God, and that the duty of the people was to obey without question and\nto submit with at least the appearance of gladness.\n\nWe now know that no such communication exists—that priests spoke\nwithout authority, and that the duty of the people was and is to examine\nfor themselves. We now know that no one knows what the will of God\nis, or whether or not such a being exists. We now know that nature has\nfurnished all the light there is, and that the inspired books are like\nall books, and that their value depends on the truth, the beauty, and\nthe wisdom they contain. We also know that it is now impossible to\nsubstantiate the supernatural. Judging from experience—reasoning from\nknown facts—we can safely say that society has no right to demand the\nsacrifice of an innocent individual.\n\nSociety has no right, under the plea of self-preservation, to compel\nwomen to remain the wives of men who have violated the contract of\nmarriage, and who have become objects of contempt and loathing to\ntheir wives. It is not to the best interest of society to maintain such\nfiresides—such homes.\n\nThe time has not arrived, in my judgment, for the Congress of the United\nStates, under an amendment to the Constitution, to pass a general\nlaw applicable to all the States, fixing the terms and conditions of\ndivorce. The States of the Union are not equally enlightened. Some are\nfar more conservative than others. Let us wait until a majority of the\nStates have abandoned the theological theories upon this subject.\n\nUpon this question light comes from the West, where men have recently\nlaid the foundations of States, and where the people are not manacled\nand burdened with old constitutions and statutes and decisions, and\nwhere with a large majority the tendency is to correct the mistakes of\ntheir ancestors.\n\nLet the States in their own way solve this question, and the time will\ncome when the people will be ready to enact sensible and reasonable\nlaws touching this important subject, and then the Constitution can be\namended and the whole subject controlled by Federal law.\n\nThe law, as it now exists in many of the States, is to the last degree\nabsurd and cruel. In some States the husband can obtain a divorce on the\nground that the wife has been guilty of adultery, but the wife cannot\nsecure a divorce from the husband simply for the reason that he has been\nguilty of the same offence. So, in most of the States where divorce\nis granted on account of desertion for a certain number of years, the\nhusband can return on the last day of the time fixed, and the poor wife\nwho has been left in want is obliged to receive the wretch with open\narms. In some States nothing is considered cruelty that does not\nendanger life or limb or health. The whole question is in great\nconfusion, but after all there are some States where the law is\nreasonable, and the consequence is, that hundreds and thousands of\nsuffering wives are released from a bondage worse than death.\n\nThe idea that marriage is something more than a contract is at the\nbottom of all the legal and judicial absurdities that surround this\nsubject. The moment that it is regarded from a purely secular standpoint\nthe infamous laws will disappear. We shall then take into consideration\nthe real rights and obligations of the parties to the contract of\nmarriage. We shall have some respect for the sacred feelings of\nmothers—for the purity of woman—the freedom of the fireside—the real\ndemocracy of the hearthstone and, above all, for love, the purest, the\nprofoundest and the holiest of all passions.\n\nWe shall no longer listen to priests who regard celibacy as a higher\nstate than marriage, nor to those statesmen who look upon a barbarous\ncode as the foundation of all law.\n\nAs long as men imagine that they have property in wives; that women can\nbe owned, body and mind; that it is the duty of wives to obey; that the\nhusband is the master, the source of authority—that his will is law,\nand that he can call on legislators and courts to protect his\nsuperior rights, that to enforce obedience the power of the State is\npledged—just so long will millions of husbands be arrogant, tyrannical\nand cruel.\n\nNo gentleman will be content to have a slave for the mother of his\nchildren. Force has no place in the world of love. It is impossible to\ncontrol likes and dislikes by law. No one ever did and no one ever can\nlove on compulsion. Courts can not obtain jurisdiction of the heart.\n\nThe tides and currents of the soul care nothing for the creeds.\nPeople who make rules for the conduct of others generally break them\nthemselves. It is so easy to bear with fortitude the misfortunes of\nothers.\n\nEvery child should be well-born—well fathered and mothered. Society has\nas great an interest in children as in parents. The innocent should not\nbe compelled by law to suffer for the crimes of the guilty. Wretched and\nweeping wives are not essential to the welfare of States and Nations.\n\nThe church cries now \"whom God hath joined together let not man put\nasunder\"; but when the people are really civilized the State will say:\n\"whom Nature hath put asunder let not man bind and manacle together.\"\n\nRobert G. Ingersoll.\n"
}