OCR Text |
Show DIVOKCES. Utah has a high (or low. as you may look at It from a deprecatory standpoint,) stand-point,) record In the matter of divorces. The record shows a total of 352 divorces di-vorces In this State during the year 1905; the number of marriages was 30CS, so that the divorces stand to the marriages mar-riages in tho ratio of about ono In eleven. In some counties this ratio was largely exceeded, as In Carbon, where the marriages wero 76 and tho divorces 15, a ratio of one In five. Juab showed one In eight; Morgan a little less than ono In live, Sevier one In six, Summit almost one In five. Four counties coun-ties Grand, Iron, Rich and San Juan had no divorces, and possibly Kane, which was not reported. The largo counties were close to the average: Salt Lake with 1G70 marriages had 179 divorces, di-vorces, or a fraction over one In nine; Utah county 26 divorces to 310 marriages, mar-riages, or somewhat more than ono In twelve; Weber had 36 divorces to 171 marriages, or one in thirteen. The most of the divorces were granted grant-ed for -desertion; next to that camo abuse and cruelty; then unfaithfulness. And the women file the great majority of the divorce suits. We are not of those who think that divorce should be forbidden, or be con fined to any rigorous rule taken from a religious source or doctrine. And we fully believe that In most cases where the parties are present, the two could by reasonable effort smooth over their difficulties and get along fairly well together; to-gether; but If they qannot, after doing everything that self-respect will allow In the Interest of peace and harmony, then they should not be forced to remain re-main together. Even If they separate, however, or cease the marriage relation, rela-tion, It does not necessarily follow that they should be divorced. But every case should bo decided for itself, on Its own facts and personalities. We do not believe In ecclesiastical Interference In-terference with the divorce laws, nor that ministers or priests have any right to say that they will not recognize the laws of the State In which they live, on this matter. It Is not a right that any minister has to say that he will not marry a divorced person to a new mate, unless he Is willing to endure the logical logi-cal penalty of being denied the right to ottlclato at weddings. For, the same power which gives him that right, also sets free a mlsmated couple, and says that one or the other (or both) Is eligible eligi-ble again to matrimony. So that the minister denying the validity of tho di vorce laws of the State has no logical right to officiate at the marriage-celebrating rites which tho same laws confer con-fer upon him. It is certainly true that divorce Is too easily obtained In many cases. But It Is no cure for that to repudiate the laws, and no law-abiding minister who fairly considers the question should put himself for one moment outside Unlaw. Un-law. If the law says that a person Is eligible to matrimony, that person Is so eligible, and It Is bootless to attempt to deny It, and to deny the rites of the marriage ceremony to such is to defy the law, and (if all ministers should do it) to encourage and Indeed directly foster sexual crln-e. We deplore as sincerely as any can. the lax methods apparent so often In the courts, where a Judge will allow a large number of divorces at a slnglo Hitting, when It is absolutely Impossible that he could have made the oxamlna- tlon that should bo made before a decree de-cree Is granted. And this Is undoubtedly undoubt-edly a grave evil. But It helps nothing to deny the validity of the decree. And the diversity of procedure In the different differ-ent States Is another fruitful cause of trouble, which will never be eliminated until the whole matter Is placed In the hands of the National Government, where It properly belongs. |