OCR Text |
Show NO DIVORCES IN JUST ONE STATE Bishop of South Carolina H Refutes Arguments of IH Opposition lH South Carolina Is the only state iH in tho union that absolutely for- H bids" divorce. Supporters of di- vorco In other states havo occn- IH sionally pointed to South Carolina IH as an argument for looser divorce H laws, declaring tho abaenco of. di- IH vorco provisions there mado for H immorality. But the Rt. Rev. "W, IH A. Guerry, Episcopalian bishop of IH South Carolina, maintains the - IH morals of his state are as high as IH any and pleads for uniform,, strict H divorce provisions throughout the H (By the Rt. Rev. W. A. Guerry, Bishop of South Carolina, Episcopalian Church.) CHARLESTON, S. C, Dec. 26. The H startling statement that one-twentieth IH of all marriages in the United States H end in divorce la of itself sufficient to H aiuuau ovuijr Durauei. iuuu tuiu woman H to tho seriousness of tho situation that H confronts us. Upon the integrity and purity of 11 H American homo depends the whole su- perstructure of our national life H Whore the home is undermined and destroyed and children cast ndrht by H a selfish and self-centered individual H ism, there is an end of all social and IH moral restraint. H To combat the growing evil of di- IH vorce in this country, a group of pub- IH lie spirited men and women have been jH trying to get through congress a uni IH form divorce law. IH What is known ns the Edmonds bill H aims, to accomplish this end. The pur- IH pose of this bill is to limit the grounds H of divorce. H STIFF FIGHT LOOMS. IH One difficulty in the way of a wide- IH spread publicity and agitation in favor, H of more stringent divorce laws grows H out of the fact that the divorce evil H has become universal. H Many a voice has been silenced H which today would be raised in protest l against this growing evil but for the IH fact that some member of his imme H diate family or some near relative has Ifl joined the ranks of the divorced. Because South Carolina has no di- H vorce law', the moral standards and habits of our people have been frc- H quently assailed. I do not beliovc that moral conditions in this state aro H worse than elsewhere. This is a mat- IH ter of opiuion based-upon a general knowledge of conditions throughout IH the IH The charge lias been made that ow- IH ing to our rigid anti-divorce hxws there IH ! is a greater amount of concubinage in J jthis state than in any'olher southern IH I state, in the ubsencc of any evi- jH ' dence in support of this statement, I IH .have always felt that the prejudice in H the case was father to tho thought, IH . SEPARATION ALLOWED. ' H Our state makes proper provision for H 1 a legal soparation of a- man from his H wife or a wife from her husband, IC H 'for any reason it -is no longer desir- H (able or possible for them to live to- M 1 g ether. H I In the case of a brutal, cruel, and M dissolute husband, the state will give H the wifo a legal separation from her H husband and will also compel him to M support his wife and children. H This is as it should be. Tho trou- H ble is that most people who aro seek- IH ' ing divorce are not satisfied with a M j legal separation. The underlying pur- M ' pose of it all is too often tho intention M of marrying again as soon as the df- H vorce has been granted. H |