UNIFORM DIVORCE LAW by G.

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Oct 15, 1902

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 28, No. 42.

UNIFORM DIVORCE LAW.

By G.

THE divorce curse has become so common, and is fraught with so much social scandal and family disaster and individual ruin, that it may well be classed with the evil “habits.” Yes, the divorce “habit” is abroad in the land, and the morals of the people have become so inured to the effect of the scourge that only extraordinary cases produce any perceptible shock. Twice divorced is not uncommon, and three times is losing its rarity. In some cases the divorce is contemplated even before the marriage is consummated. Not only is the evil increasing at an alarming rate, but it is no longer confined to any class or grade of society. Even the church recognizes it as a legitimate procedure.

There could hardly be a more decided evidence of moral degeneracy than this growing disregard of the most sacred of all earthly ties, the most solemn of all vows pertaining to earthly relationship. Nothing could more positively indicate that condition noted in Scripture as “without natural affection,” a condition especially applied to the “perilous times” of the “last days.” See 2 Tim. 3:1-5. Even in the olden times, divorce was conceded because of hardness of heart. In the very incipiency of the idea it was evidence of sin in the heart. It was not so designed in the beginning, therefore its introduction was a result of sin and its increase an evidence of the growing prevalence of sin. See Matt. 19:7-9; Mal. 2:14-16.

What shall the remedy be? As to the condition of the individual, there is but one remedy for sin, namely, obedience to the Gospel of Jesus Christ; in other words, the law of God in the heart. But as to the abuse of the social well-being, there may be an amelioration of disrupted social conditions through civil law. The civil law is designed to correct as far as possible uncivil conditions. While human law, unlike the “law of the Lord” (Ps. 19:7), can not convert the soul, it is designed to prevent abuses of the rights of men and women.

The United States Government is a compact of States for the mutual benefit of the people of all the States, and Congress may pass laws for that purpose. At present marriage and divorce are regulated by State laws, and these are quite conflicting. Yet persons legally married in one State are recognized in any other State as being married. Divorces in most cases go in the same way. So while one State may close the bars against divorce for any cause, the State just across the line may open the way to divorce on any pretext. In this way temptation is open for the gratification of laxity concerning the marriage relation, a corruption of social conditions, and the violation of the rights of many individuals—men, women, and children.

The general government could materially curb the practise of this species of licentiousness by a uniform marriage and divorce law. And the general government is being persistently importuned to enact such a law. But unfortunately the parties—the “league,” the “association,” the “bureau,” etc.—urging this matter do so mainly from a religious standpoint, and appeal for a religious law. So far those who have agitated the matter are such as desire to have the whole government operated on a religious basis, and every “reform” they advocate is primarily a means to that end. And every success they attain is another step in that direction. Thus, while some of their “reforms” would be good in themselves if established on a right basis, they are to be used by these “reformers” to gain public confidence, and prestige for the furtherance of their ultimate purpose—a religious government. Already they are boasting their successes as encouragement in the main purpose.

The suggestion of a uniform marriage service as part of the “reform” is significant. In the nature of the case it means a “ritual” service, and to satisfy the advocates of the measure—the leaders generally being ministers—it must needs be such a religious ceremony as would meet the approval of those who already use such service. Such a law would confine the administration of the marriage ceremony to the ministry of the churches, and by the time this “National Reform” movement gets a little further along we will have the ritual of the national religion, whatever that may be. And the man who will not subscribe to that religion will be denied the privilege of marriage at all. Is the picture overdrawn?—Not at all. That is the way such things have gone in other countries; it is the natural course. We are in favor of a uniform marriage and divorce law in the United States, but let us have it without the National Reform-papal adornments. Congress would do well to look to the end of the “reforms” suggested by the Reform Bureau, the National Reform Association, the Reform League, and other strands in the same lash. There is a sharp cracker at the end. Jesuitical?—Well, that hardly expresses it. Imitations are always more deceptive than the original. Beware of anything that savors of national religion! The centuries are strewn with the carcasses of its victims. G.