“Mouse-Trap” Idea Behind Marriage Laws

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 345, 4 May 1928, Page 13

“Mouse-Trap” Idea Behind Marriage Laws

Students Urge Easier and Cheaper Divorces ; CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY DEBATE Bobbed-haired girl undergraduates and women of all ages thronged the galleries of the Cambridge University Union Debating Society to hear a trenchant debate on marriage and divorce. So packed was the House that scores of men sat on the floors or shared window ledges with female students. Masculine wit and wisdom was much to the fore, as membership of the union is restricted to men, but the girls laughed and cheered as speaker after speaker made illuminating points. The following motion was carried by a majority of thirteen votes —243 for and 230 against: That this House would welcome greater facilities for divorce in England. Some of the points made by the speakers were: The divorce law found its inspiration in the idea that woman is man’s toy. Every woman to-day is her own mistress—whether cr not she is anyone else’s. Marriage is liable to consist of a wedding dress, a going-away costume, and a divorce suit. We are all capable of changing our minds after marriage and finding our neighbour’s wife a little more companionable than our own. Where can you draw a line between a happy and an unhappy marriage? Divorce cannot bp obtained for less than £SO. How many poor people can afford that? It is one of the ways in which our divorce laws promote immorality. Nine times out of ten a woman chooses a man, and in the tenth case her relatives thrust her upon him. A wife is often a metaphorical white elephant. Wives are as much trouble as motorcars—but they cannot be fitted with automatic silencers. When Love is Finished Proposing the motion, Mr. H. H. Foot said marriage was looked upon as a glorified mouse-trap by our grandfathers. One of the chief causes of immorality to-day was the strict divorce laws. Judicial separation led to immorality. Insanity was a ground for divorce in Germany, cruelty in France, drunkenness in New Zealand, and desertion had been a ground for 300 years in Scotland. Marriage should be founded on mutual love and understanding to create a home. When two people found love and understanding had finished the original definition broke down. “Is it better for children to be brought up by one of the parents who care for them or in a household w T ith suspicion, bitterness, or actual immorality ?” he asked. He was told that immorality existed mainly among young unmarried men and married older men. At present there were many injustices which could be remedied by reform. To-day it was possible to get di vorce for the rich only by stealth, deceit, and perjury. The same result could be achieved by open, honest methods. Mr. J. G. Leatham, opposing the motion, said that once we started on this* deep slope it was going to be very difficult to apply the brakes. Breaking the Contract Dr. Norman Haire said there were three main conceptions of marriage. One conception—his own view—is that marriage is a contract entered into by a man and a woman in the sight not of God but of their fellow men, w r hich loses most of its value as soon as the essential conditions of the contract cease to exist or when they undergo an alteration and change, he continued. ‘I think marriage ought only to be a contract as long as it is a civil contract. When once it becomes an uncivil contract surely it is time that the contract w'as dissolved altogether. Marriage is largely a matter of tradition, and, like many traditions, it has in its present form ceased to serve a good many of the services for which it was devised. “Our marriage system is based on compromise between the old Hebrew marriage and the marriage of the ancient Romans—a compromise which seems to have lost most of the good points of either. He inclined to the view that woman was by no means monogamous, though probably less polygamous than man. There were three main reasons why man adopted monogamy—the emancipation of woman, the rise of democracy, and the Christian faith. Male Monogamy a Pretence

“This male monogamy,” he continued, “has never been much more than a pretence. The knight in the days of chivalry did not in reality confine his attention to his wife. The Crusader left his wife at home and took someone else. “To-day a man and a woman marry as equals. I do not mean as identicals. They tend more and more to equal education, earning capacity, and desire for a small number of children whom they wish to see well brought up. “We expect youths and maidens to go for many years beyond the age at which they are ripe for mating, and we expect them to choose one partner and choose right first time. While I am in favour of easier divorce I am not in favour of more divorces. Having failed with one wife or husband, why should they not get a divorce and try another? “If you refuse to grant a divorce when one party wants it you are pretty sure to get two unhappy people instead of at w’orst only one. “In these days of female emancipation alimony might be provided for the husband w r here necessary as well as for the wife. (Laughter.) If a prisoner is happy why lock him in? If he is not why pretend that he is?” Mr. King-Hamilton said a great number of unhappy marriages would be brought into being by easier divorce, because divorce invited unhappy marriages. Marriage w r as like eating mushrooms —you never knew you w'ere safe until it was too late.”