Trial Marriages Urged By Judge

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 245, 6 January 1928, Page 7

Trial Marriages Urged By Judge

A STARTLING DOCTRINE TERMINABLE CONTRACTS Defined as v a recognition of a form of relationship already widely existent, the startling “companionate marriage” doctrine being preached by Judge Ben B. Lindsey, of Denver, Colorado, is attracting deep interest throughout the United States, says a representative of the Melbourne “Herald.” Recently an interested listener at a spirited debate between Judge Lindsey and Rabbi Louis Newman, at the beautiful new Temple Emanuel, I heard the judge define “companionate marriage” as one in which a man and woman live as if in the married state, employ birth-control measures, and later, if there are no children, separate by mutual consent without obligation on either side.

If they consider the “experiment” a success they can then contract a marriage in the ordinary way. What Judge Lindsey really advocates is trial marriage.

Judge Charles S. Burnell, presiding judge of the Los Angeles Superior Courts, has won a front page position on all the leading American newspapers with a proposal that the present form of marriage be replaced by a five years’ “term marriage.” renewable or voidable at the end of the period by either party. With divorces overtaking marriages in Denver, and all but catching up with marriage in Los Angeles, Judge Lindsey’s proposal has aroused a storm

of controversy throughout the United States. The churches and practically every religious or semi-religious organisation are strongly opposed to companionate marriages on the ground that they would tend to promiscuity. JLidge Lindsey has the backing of the. legions of “advanced thinkers” and militant modernists of the great cities who consider that in the light of divorce statistics and changed social and industrial conditions, the present form of marriage is unsuited to modern life. Plea For Birth Control More than .1.000 fashionably-dressed men and women, who had paid from one to two dollars for admission, listened with* breathless interest to the verbal clash between the jude-e, thoroughly sure of his facts, and the earnest, eloquent young Rabbi, full of faith in human nature. The next evening Judge Lindsey again debated the question at the auditorium which seats more than 7,000 people. The house was sold right out of tickets costing up to two dollars long before the debate began. Judge Lindsey said a life’s experience of the marriage problems of Denver had convinced him that companionate marriages would mean that birth control would be legalised, divorces would be obtained without collusion and perjury, and thousands of young peonle would be spared a sense of shame arising out of an association formed outside marriage. Provided there were no children, the parties to a companionate marriage could separate and go their own ways by mutual consent.

If there were children, the present divorce law would apply. They would not need to falsely accuse each other of cruelty, infidelity or non-support, or actually to commit these offences, merely for the sake of securing a divorce. Without hope of alimony, there would be fewer adventuresses seeking to marry well-to-do men, and men who would marry for money would bp scared off.

A companionate marriage could not be severed without mutual consent. If this consent were withheld by either party, the ordinary divorce law would have to be invoked. Eighty per cent, of present divorces were obtained by collusion and fraud, he declared. Taking his stand on the moral issue, rather than on expediency, the brilliant young Rabbi opposed companionate marriages on the ground that they would encourage promiscuity, destroy the age-old ideal of marriage, and generally reduce moral standards. “Wait For Life’s Love”

“We should teach young people to wait for the great love of their life, and not encourage them to abandon themselves to a temporary passion,” lie declared. “We should teach them that any breach of the code of chastity in pre-marital life, will form habit reactions which will prevent them from having a complete love life in marriage. Most of the present divorces would not occur if young people had been trained to high ideals of personal decency, restraint,’ moderation and self control before marriage. Discipline of this nature will solve the divorce problem.

“All the benefits claimed fior companionate marriages can be gained from the present system. I see no harm in the legalisation of divorce by mutual consent for childless couples and of birth control, but I believe that to tell young men they owe no financial responsibility toward their “conipanionates” is to give them a dangerous and irresponsible attitude toward the duties of permanent marriage. Retain Ideals “We should hold the young to the ideals of respect by men for womanhood. of faith and loyalty, of self disr cipline. of perfect consecration of two souls destined one for the other. Let us reform marriage from within, rather than assail it from without.” It was a brilliant debate. I thought all the honours were with Rabbi Newman. The judge took his stand merely on expediency, but the Rabbi struck the high note of duty and self control, and of faith in that perfect love which castetli out fear. Fie had the older members of his audience strongly with him. Judge Lindsey’s following comes from those who like to be thought daring in thought and action. The principal points of Judge Burnell’s “term” marriage scheme are: All marriages limited to five years, but renewable by mutual consent for similar periods. All marriages to be terminated by the consent of either party, but terminable by ordinary divorce proceedings on the grounds of adultery and extreme cruelty only. Disputes regarding children or property to be subject to court decisions as at present. Support of children or of a wife unable to provide for herself in the event of divorce to be fixed by statute on a reasonable basis.

Explaining his plan. Judge Burnell stated that the most natural, the most general, the most justifiable, and, indeed. the only real cause for a divorce, was simply that a husband no longer loved his wife, or vice versa: or that both would be happier alone. “Society has nothing to gain in keeping people shackled id&ethe-i----sgainsi tlwrir will." he said.