p. 294 | MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE by Editor

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Jun 30, 1881

MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.

By Editor

It is much to be regretted that there is not a uniform law for all the States on the subject of marriage and divorce. As it now is, a person may get a divorce by collusion, by leaving one State and going to another, and there is no legal remedy provided. And, worst of all, our laws are so loosely framed that to evade the obligations of the marriage tie, a premium is placed on crime. A man may commit a crime for which the court will issue a decree of divorce against him, but the court has no further authority in the case to punish for the crime. It may appear to the satisfaction of the court that he was guilty; and the decree be based on that ground, but it brings no punishment. The only effect it works is to dissolve the marriage tie, which, it may be, was just what the criminal desired, as it enables him to contract marriage elsewhere. Here is a shameful abuse of marriage, if not directly legalized, yet made possible, and even protected, by the law. In this, our laws are wrong.

To a correspondent we reply that we did not wish to be understood, in a recent article on this subject, to say that a person who is divorced for crime has any right to marry again. We do not believe that is the case. But we are still of opinion that a person who obtains a divorce from a criminal party, has a right to marry again. Our friend says:—

"In St. Matthew the wording might lead one to think there was permission; but reading the other gospels, we find it expressed explicitly the sin of marrying one put away."

We do not, and have never intended to, justify the marrying of one put away; the only question of difference is, Has a person a right to marry again who puts one away for just cause? We think in such a case, one party may marry; the other may not.

The method of interpretation adopted by our correspondent, is certainly erroneous. We do not limit one text of Scripture by another not so extensive in its expressions; we must explain a text which is less definite, by the one which is more definite. The exception given in Matthew is not stated in Mark and Luke. But the silence of these evangelists cannot neutralize the words of Matthew. If the testimony of the latter is reliable, our Saviour did give one reason for which a man may put away his wife, and marry another. It is a pity that his words are so greatly abused, and perverted to serve the purposes of the base and vile. The laws of the nation should prevent this.

We are not at all tenacious of our opinion. If it can be shown that one marriage is all that can be allowed to any person, even under the circumstances named, we shall cheerfully accept the decision. But we have not yet been able to so read the Scriptures.