Cell seeks affinity with cell.—Reedy.

WHEN young people meet on a natural basis our present civilization insists that it must necessarily be followed by a permanent, life-long friendship or disgrace.

The cosmic urge causes a meeting which, if followed by an enforced close relationship, usually has incompatability as a sequence.

Nature has one thing forever in mind. Civilization has not counted on this.

A youth and a maiden meet when passion is strong, the will undisciplined and judgment undeveloped. Convention says there is but one thing to do when young people are thus strongly attracted to each other, and that is to get the sanction of society (church and state) and make arrangements for a permanent intimacy.

The youth expects the perpetual beauty, smile and charm of the ballroom, reception or parlor. The maiden expects protestation of love, and her ideals and promises fulfilled.

Each has firmly fixed in the mind an idea of something that has none or little of the real in it—an idea that is impossible. Yet in it there are hope and fond desire somewhere hinted.

The facts are that a struggle has just begun with some of the unpoetic realities of existence, of which neither has ever before dreamed.

Perhaps the wife must rise early, prepare the breakfast, keep the rooms in order. This is work.

The husband goes to business.

Business perplexes.

“Oh, she is just like other women!”

“Oh, he is just a common man!”

They complain.

The cosmic urge has nothing to do with any of this. It has come—and gone, perhaps.

There is left a social situation. These two young people have had something in common, and possibly only a transitory something.

How shall they live together when she loves what he hates, and he has hopes, ambitions, desires that are nothing to her?

“He has cheated me!” “She has fooled me!” is their heart-cry.

The truth, however, is something like this: “We have been deceived. Nature said one thing to us, and we confused with it something else and thought what society said was true. We have been deceived.”

There was nothing in the first attraction that made these two understand anything about hardships, disagreeable duties, discomforts, weariness, pain.

Those who are anxious to uphold church authority are saying a good deal about the divorce evil. They bring statistics to show that one out of every twelve marriages results in divorce.

They have not, however, secured any statistics as to whether the people in the other eleven marriages enjoy what our Constitution affirms to be the rights of American citizens: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The Church is talking about a “cure” for the divorce evil! One bishop earnestly recommends the Jewish anathematization, “Let neither party ever be spoken to again.” But how would this remedy the social condition of the two?

This is punishment, but not cure. The cause of the trouble is not even looked for by the bishop.

“Is marriage a failure?” According to the divorce-courts it is.

The Church concedes that one-twelfth of all marriages are failures.