IN one of the older theological periods, yet not so very old, there was a theory that Satan was a necessary part of the godhead. At present there seems to be a theory like unto it. It is that divorce is a necessary feature of the marriage system.

This notion is working fully as much mischief in morals and manners as Satan could do if he were part of Omnipotence.

Divorce is popular with certain classes, because married life—not marriage—is sometimes a failure, but the fault is not with the institution, but the individual. When Mrs. Mona Caird’s low-toned essay, “Is Marriage a Failure?” was being talked of a few months ago, Rev. David Swing, of Chicago, said the question should have been, “Is Good Sense a Failure?” Dr. Swing then struck at the root of the trouble by saying, “Ill comes not because men and women are married, but because they are fools.” Yet this is almost the only class for whom our divorce laws are made, and the more liberal the laws, the more foolish the fools can afford to be.

Were divorce popular only for the sake of getting rid of undesirable partners it would be bad enough. Really it is a thousand times worse because its principal purpose is to help husband or wife to a new partner. This cause never is assigned in a petition for divorce; it doesn’t need to be; the community has learned to assume it, as a matter of course.

The case was well put a short time ago by Rabbi Silverman, at the great Temple Emanu-El, in New York, when he said, “The real cause for divorce is that there is nothing behind the civil contract that cements the marriage union and so welds it that nothing can tear it asunder. The real cause for divorce is that the marriage was a failure because it was not a marriage in fact, but merely in name. It was not a union of hearts for mutual happiness, but merely a partnership for vain pleasure and profit.” So long as we allow divorce to be easy, do we not encourage such marriages?

Any divorce except for the one cause recognized by the founder of Christianity is more injurious to society at large than any other crime, murder not excepted. Most crimes may have a good reflex influence by persuading men to be more watchful of their own impulses and lives, but the men or women who obtain divorces for any but the gravest cause are sure, aside from the effect upon themselves, to increase the discontent of acquaintances whose married life is not all that had been hoped or wished.

One condition absolutely necessary to a pure and happy married life is the belief from the beginning that wedlock is to last as long as life itself. Without the stimulus of this tremendous sense of responsibility no person will unmake and remake himself so as to be the fit companion of another. Even with this impulse the effort often fails, as all of us know from observation of our own acquaintances. To admit the possibility of a cessation of relations or, worse still, a change of marital relations, is to relax effort and to become a selfish time-server—to become a confidence man instead of a partner.

The effect of a divorce suit upon the plaintiff is something which does not require theorizing. It can be ascertained by personal observation in almost any American court which grants divorces, for such cases are becoming more and more frequent. Whether the plaintiff be man or woman, whether the cause be drunkenness, or desertion, or incompatibility of temper, or insanity, or improvidence, or any of the various causes for which divorces are granted in some States, the plaintiff or complainant, if closely watched from day to day during the proceedings, will be seen, even by his dearest friends, to show marks of mental deterioration. To tear two lives apart is a serious thing at best. Two friends bound only by ordinary ties have seldom separated without bad effects being visible upon both. Where the friendship is of a nature that has affected every portion of the life of each, as must have been the case even with wedded couples who have married at haste and have not even begun to repent at leisure, the effect is so marked that a person seeking divorce almost always loses some of his adherents, who previously had been his warmest friends, before the case is decided. Where love was, hatred is excited though it may not even have existed in the first place. The contest upon points of fact, upon recollections of difficulties and differences, the depressing literalness and materialism of proof such as is demanded in courts, the entire materialism, heartlessness, callousness, of all the proceedings, as they must be conducted under forms of law, are such as to debase any nature but the noblest—but noble natures do not seek divorce.

Bad as may be the condition of the complainant and the effect upon his own manner and conduct, it is not as deplorable as that visible upon the defendant. To face any direct charge in a court of law before witness, even if these be only officers of the law who are supposed to be impartial and judicial in their opinions and actions, the violation of privacy in regard to interests and relations, which above all others—except perhaps those of a human being toward his God—are sacred even to the rudest minds, cannot help have its effect upon any nature but the strongest. The life of the defendant in a divorce suit, unless the complaint is utterly groundless and unfair, is from the first likely to be blasted. The more at fault the more the defendant must suffer, not only in his own self-respect, but in the regard of those about him. The curious gaze of the spectators, the intent look of the jurors, the disgust of the judge upon the bench, the flippancy of the witness on the stand, all have influences which would make many innocent people show signs of guilt. Upon any one really at fault all these influences must be still more depressing.

It is a common saying among lawyers that a woman divorced from her husband, on no matter how slight cause, is pretty sure to go to the bad thereafter. This is not necessarily an indication, so the lawyers say, that the woman is at fault, but that the mental strain to which she has been subjected, the strain upon her self-respect, is greater than poor humanity is equal to. What the subsequent results are upon her in society we all know. The present ruler of England has decided that no divorced woman, no matter in what country her divorce was obtained, shall ever appear at court. The rule seems cruel, but social results certainly appear to justify it.

If there are children in the case, as usually there are—for somehow people without children seldom appear in the divorce courts—if there are children, the results upon them are worse than upon either the complainant or defendant. The principal good influence children are subject to is that of home. A disagreement between father and mother naturally interrupts this. An absolute break between the parents cannot fail to immediately have the worst possible effects upon the children. All children—except yours and mine—are at times brutes. There are no worse tale-tellers, no worse back-biters, no worse sayers of cruel things, than little children. It is not that they are unusually wicked or savage by nature, but insufficient training, lack of self-restraint, lack of adult sense of propriety, causes the tongue to say whatever is in the heart; and any adult who is obliged to keep a watch upon his own tongue should be able through sympathy to imagine the savagery which will be inflicted upon the children of divorced or divorcing people by their associates. However disobedient or irreverent children may be to their parents, the filial instinct exists in all of them, and a stab at either parent is felt most keenly by the children.

The ordinary consolations of a person wounded through the heart of another are denied the child. It has neither religion nor philosophy, nor even stoicism, to support it. It must suffer keenly, and when it looks for consolation or desires consolation, where is it to go, when the two authors of its being, whom it has been taught to regard with equal respect, are at difference, and each is ready to accuse the other and belittle the other? The child of a divorced person is a marked object of curiosity in the society of children, whether in neighborhood parties or at school or Sunday-school, or even in church. The slightest quarrel brings the inevitable taunt that “your mother ran away from your father,” or “your father is in love with somebody else’s mother,” or “you haven’t any father now,” or something of the kind. Only a short time ago the newspapers of the United States recorded the suicide of a child of nine years, who had sought death to avoid the torment of being twitted with the separation of its parents.

Four lines of one of Pope’s poems, which probably are familiar to every one, indicate the general effect of divorced persons upon society:

The report that any person has obtained a divorce for any cause but the most serious generally sends a shudder through any American social circle which calls itself respectable. Even husbands and wives whose own marital experiences have not been as joyous as was expected, are shocked by the legal disruption of a family—the spectacle of the wifeless husband whose wife really lives, or the woman without mate or protector whose husband nevertheless is not yet dead. But the force of the shock gradually weakens through frequent meetings with either party. The faults of the absent member are recalled, the good points of the alleged culprit are also recalled, and little by little excuses are made, until the change is regarded as coolly as the dissolution of a business copartnership. Unfortunately, too, the parties to a divorce are often brilliant members of the society in which they have moved, for the liveliest persons are generally the most discontented. The unrest of some phases of social life, the desire to be less confined at home, and to be more in general and congenial company, has a great deal to do with bringing about divorce, much though the guilty parties may deny it, and the persons who most frequently appear in the divorce courts are those who have been the most popular in their respective social sets.

This is bad enough, but it is only the beginning of the evil. What man has done man—or woman—may do, is as true of evil as of good. If Mr. A or Mrs. B has escaped a lot of apparent marital trouble by divorce, why should not Mr. and Mrs. C do likewise? They meant well—this is an admission which most people sooner or later make in favor of everybody not absolutely fiendish—they failed. Why should they not try again? Then besides, they once more have their freedom, and the longing to be free is strong enough in the animal portion of any one’s nature to rise and trample down everything else, if it is at all encouraged. Little by little, yet very rapidly, contemplation of the problem of divorce discourages efforts towards self-improvement and the perfection of marital life. It is a benumber and deadener of every honorable conjugal impulse. To endeavor to decide between two evils is an experience which is demoralizing to any one; to decide between evil and good, when the good seems no more desirable than the evil, is a great deal worse. Yet this is the mental and moral condition of every one still married who contemplates divorce as a possible release from relations which are unsatisfactory, yet which might be made all that they should be.

The effect of association with divorced people—and there is no grade of society which does not contain them—is especially deplorable upon young people of marriageable age. The veriest heathen who has studied the influences of marriage will admit that the rising generation needs greater seriousness in contemplating wedlock. But what can be expected of any good-natured, well-meaning, thoughtless, careless, pleasure-loving, selfish young man or girl—and nearly all young people are fairly described by these adjectives—who, while wondering whether or no to propose to, or accept, some attractive person of the opposite sex, is continually reminded by certain facts and incidents that if the bond becomes irksome it may be broken at will?

Some husbands and wives fight like cats and dogs, but in spite of it all, thank God, they still dearly love their children. What man or woman within the pale of decency would give a daughter in marriage with the thought that she might be put away by her husband at some time for some cause recognized by the courts of Utah, or Chicago, or Indiana, as sufficient for divorce? What parent will allow a son to mate with a girl who might possibly weary of him, release herself through legal measures and become the wife of some other man?

Physicians and spiritual directors agree that persistent thought upon the lower developments and interests of the marriage relation are extremely injurious to human character. What other phases of married life can be much dwelt upon by the mind of any one who thinks at all of the possibility of divorce for any cause but the most serious? The relationship thus regarded is so nearly that of the animals that love, so far as it has existed, must be brought down to the level of passion, and passion afterward to that of lust, and lust in turn down to appetite, until beings, who once had hopes and aspirations and longings which, in spite of being unfortified by knowledge and principle, were noble in themselves, place themselves practically on the level of the beasts. According to managers and chaplains of great prisons there is hope of reform for almost any criminal whose offences were committed only through what are called the selfish instincts, by which is generally meant destructiveness and theft. But these same experts in crime are utterly hopeless of the reformation of any one whose sexual instincts have become depraved or even inverted. Yet it is difficult for any one to go through a divorce case, or to think steadily upon the possibility of divorce, without such a deterioration of sexual feeling, impulse, and aspiration. What hope can there be that such persons will occupy a respectable position in society in the future?

Can divorce be made less popular and easy? Yes. How? By a constitutional amendment, against which no respectable citizen not a lawyer would dare to vote, that the national government shall make a divorce law to replace those of the States. Tricks of, and concessions to divorce lawyers cannot be slipped through Congress as easily as through a State Legislature. Congress is up to a great many dirty jobs, but not of that kind.

Congress can’t make a stringent divorce law, say some lawyers, but perhaps these gentlemen have their own reasons for saying so. Ex-Attorney-General Russell, of New York, who has looked into the subject closely, recently said such a constitutional amendment was possible, because more than two-thirds of the States already are inclined to limit divorce to the gravest cause only.

In the framing and adoption of such a constitutional amendment, Congress would have support from a source whose importance cannot be overestimated. I mean the Church; not any one denomination, but all—Mormons excepted. Bishop Foss, of the Methodist Church, said recently that his denomination could be counted upon to support such a movement; Bishop Whittaker, of the Protestant Episcopal Church, spoke in similar strain. The Catholic Church recognizes but one cause of divorce, and the Hebrews are equally rigid. Indeed, all creeds agree on this subject, and when the amendment comes up for vote or ratification the influence of such “Church Union” cannot be combatted—much less overcome.

The effect of a divorce law upon the community should be like that of a burned bridge to a lot of soldiers who have just crossed it. With no possibility of going back, there is every inducement to go ahead and make the best of whatever is before.