The Taihape Daily Times AND WAIMARINO ADVOCATE. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1920. THE ABOLITION OF WEDLOCK.

Taihape Daily Times, Volume XII, Issue 3568, 2 September 1920, Page 4

The Taihape Daily Times AND WAIMARINO ADVOCATE.

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1920. THE ABOLITION OF WEDLOCK.

With which is incorporated “The Taihape Post and Waimarino News,"

Very much has been, stated aud very much about Russian Bolshevik determination to revolutionise family life by nationalisation of women, and, if not altogether of* women, then of children. It was quite in the ordinary nature of things that many mistaken notions should be transmitted by allarmed people in Russia to their friends in other countries, but considering the-intensely absorbing .nature of. the subject it is truly astonishing that so few mistakes have really been broadcasted. It was stated that women had been nationalised and that all over the age of eighteen had to report themselves,. and assemble for the purpose of being mated off, whether such mating was repugnant or otherwise to them. Whether this unnatural, degrading purpose was the Bolshevik intention or not, will have to be gathered from the subsequently revised version of Soviet marriage laws that have since been published in refutation of such revolting marital announcements as undeniably did appear in leading Bolshevik newspapers. Lenin was quick to realise that nothing was so revolting to“ men and women of civilised nations as hi s nationalisation of women; he knew that he might as well throw in the Bolshevik sponge as to allow such doctrine to get abroad, and he hastened to evolve and promulgate a marriage code that is not much more than a subtle difference | of wording to that code that was pub- 1 lished in “Isbesvia.” as Lenin states, without his authority. There is, however, no question about the marriage code now under discussion bearing the imprimatur of and it may be taken to indicate just the degree of respect that Bolshevism has for women, the family and home life. After careful examination the new. authentic Soviet Marriage Code is no improvement upon that published in “Isbeslia'"; for if it does not hold woman up to insult, degradation and ignominy one way, it does in another. If it does not nationalise the woman it can only be construed as a nationalisation of children. It is antagonistic •to cultured feelings of women and Is an undisguised blow at that homelife which civilised nations in their progress towards higher ideals and greater sanctity of home life have developed it. What is deemed to he best in the relationships between the sexes- in the highest civilised communities of the world the ignorant Bolshevik! of Russia, under the dictatorship of the illiterate, semi-civilised ‘ Mongol. Lenin, would, with one fell j swoop, wipe out of existence. That the Russian Communist Code Lenin would force upon the peoples of the world is merely a transition step to the complete, total, abolishment of marriage, sociologists, and even, foremost socialists in Germany and in other countries, have no doubt and they have publicly stated that the only discoverabe intention of the Russian Soviet Marriage Code is the total abolishment of marriage, and that home-life so highly developed, prized,

ami he/tl sacred by all civilised peoples. There is to be uo distinction between legitimate and illegitimate parentage; I'ocal popular tribunals are i set up to decide parentage. Unmarried women are compelled to appear before this popular tribunal and declare parentage, and married women may do so if the man of the registered marriage is not the parent. If a dozen men are knotvn to he involved in any such declaration, they all have to appear before the Popular Tribunal and all are ordered to pay something towards the upkeep of the child; but fancy pictures the deep, dark slough of the degrading scenes that must almost constantly be taking place in those halls of “justice and humanity.” An unfortunate girl is questioned and cross-questioned by the tribunal'and by men who rumour says are suspected of more than friendship with her — hut no more need be said about a sex la w that could only prove, revolting to the m'ost abandoned woman in any civilised country. What must a nation ultimately become that would by force compel all peoples everywhere to submit to -such a brutal, ignorant, degrading, detestable marital relationship? Reasoning the thing out to its legitimate end it is obvious, that a people entirely submit ting to such a code must rapidly de generate into a community of beasts; its effect upon the intelligence of civilised men and women would undoubtedly be of an awful and awesome character; it must result in unsexing the sexes, destroying the sacredness of home-life, and ultimately result in decadency of civilisation. The forced observande of one brutal instinct could 'only end in the fall away to other brutish instincts. In any case, it would be idle to notice the inventions and machinations of the- Bolshevik dictator, were it not for the fact that there are those amongst ns who are craftily trying to obscure truth about what Bolshevism means to the people \vho may be foolish enough to he led astray ’by it. The German socialist leader Karl Kauty sky is not deceived about the subtleness of the Russian Communist Code being nothing more than a stop towards the total abolishment of marriage, for he states, “The complete equality of rights between all children, without distinction 'of parentage, is a measure of sociaU psychology preparing the. way for applying the care or the community to all children, removing the las f foundations of bourgeois marriage, with its privileges, its narrow family its isolation, and its patriarchal limitations. “What arethe privileges our marriage laws Confer upon those who enter into the honourable, the sacred contract? What are the family interests resulting from marriage which we hold dearer than life itself? What does Russian Communism offer in the Soviet Marriage Code to take the place of the family bond of love and blood, which is so strong as to render the family an entity Kautsky calls isolation and patriarchal limitation, which In themselves ? nre , contradictory terms Russian Bovldtism wohld replace what is held dearer than life in civilised countries with a marriage system in which two people need only g ; 7 and register there desire to live together, and when they wish to separat they need only go and register that desire and they are divorced. What is there In such a marriage. Neither party is bound by anything stronger than the desire to'separate. Are Bolsheviks obsessed with any idea that they can build up a brotherhood of man by any such insane method? Will they" not realise that with all the narrowing, the isolation, the patriarchal limitations of the civilised marriage code, even troyallv fades away and in time becomes an unrecognisable part of the human mass? it is commonly observable that the family ring widens out until it merges into a human ocean of which it wa’s never more than a part ; and yet an ignorant Russian despotism would force a revolutionary marriage code upon highly cultured nations of the world because of a family bond of love holding the family together. The aim of the Soviet system is to destroy the family, the home-life civilisation has built up in past centimes, by nationalising all children, and rendering"marriage and i divorce a mere expression of individ- j ual will, involving society in a chaos j from which would result another j struggle to build up the family-ties so ruthlessly destroyed. We should prefer to see the Russian Soviet nationalisation first tried upon the brute creation, and if it is demonstrated that the family instincts of the cat or dog, the sparrow or eagle can be advantageously eliminated, or even eliminated at all t there would be, at least, a remote possibility that Lenin and his Bolshevik gangs throughout, the world, might succoec in eliminating the maternal, paternal and progeny instincts in mankind. But until some such demonstration is successfully carried out, we Shall continue to believe that it is not yet j within the limits of human possibility. I