Marriage Should Be A Sacred Institution Between Only A Man And A Woman

I found this topic on Helium.com and of course I had to write an article about it. It was more in the form of opinion based not really article based. But, I wrote on this topic anyway. Below you will read what I had to say.

Every time I stumble on this debate question, I feel a little chuckle come over me. I guess to me, the question really should be "Has Marriage ever been a sacred institution?" I totally disagree with this because I am a lesbian. I think its bullshit that we're not allowed to get married in this country. One only needs to look back through history to see that Marriage has never been a sacred institution. Marriage has, from its earliest beginnings, represented a financial contract, where families of those who were to marry would benefit for political gains, financial advancement, land boundaries, and more. It was not uncommon for a father to barter and use his daughter(s) as bargaining pawns for his own advancements. There was no love between the two that were to be married, and in some cases they never even met before the wedding day; what is so sacred about that? Keep looking at early marriage right on down to today, and you will see how Marriage gave man the right to treat woman as a second class citizen. It was quite common for man to have a mistress or seek out women for sexual purposes though they were married and had entered that supposed sacred institution. In fact, it was almost expected that man sought out other women and even other men for sex, while their wife was strictly for the purpose of giving off-spring and helping him carry on a good name. Today, both man and woman cheat on each other, they abuse each other physically and emotionally, and they take relationships for granted. So, how sacred is this institution? Just look at the divorce rate and you can see that marriage is far from a sacred institution. With that said, why should anyone have the right to dictate who can and cannot get married? Chances are if you are against homosexuals getting married, you would not be on the invitation list to their weddings. How would you even know if homosexual couples got married? How would it interfere with your life? How would it stop your marriage from being sacred? Marriage is a sacred institution only when two people are willing to commit their time and effort to truly making a monogamous relationship work. Man and woman are capable of doing that, but so are man and man, and woman and woman. I mean what are the conservatives really afraid of? What I want to know is why hasn't gay marriages been legalized yet. It's all a way of George Bush to control us Americans. It's bullshit. I don't think George Bush should have the right to say whether I am allowed to get married or not. Who is George Bush? He's the President, yeah so what. George Bush isn't my father, he doesn't know me, he didn't raise me, he doesn't know what it's like to be a lesbian, why should he choose my life for me? What fucking right does he have to choose my life for me? It's unfair. They say all Americans are free but this is bullshit. It's all lies. George Bush having the right to choose whether I'm allowed to get married or not makes me hate him. He's not really a good president anyway because look ever since he got into office our country is at war. George Bush has the right to choose whether I get married or not, and they say that in the United States everyone is free and has rights. Well I say that is all lies. Don't believe everything you hear. It's bullshit really. Who has the right to choose whether a marriage should be a sacred institution between only a woman and man? It's unfair and it's bullshit. No one should have the right to choose that. All people should the right to choose what they want to make of their life, no one else should have the right to choose that for them. This is the United States not a third world country. It's about time that Gays, Lesbians, Bi-sexual and Transgender people have rights too. The “sacredness" of marriage has no singular meaning. To some religious communities and the politicians in them, sacredness implies that marriage is an institution set apart for a specific purpose by God. It is not only a special relationship between a man and a woman but between the couple and God and thus a "sacred" institution. But many other people of faith see marriage as a relationship between a couple and between the couple and God no matter what the genders of the partners involved. For others still, "sacred" has more to do with the fact that they see marriage as a building block for society. Marriage (between a man and a woman) is sacred because without it, these people contest, all of society would be thrust into chaos. "Authentic" family bonds would not exist, children would be brought up in inadequate homes, and "values" (whatever the individual defines these to mean) are not passed on from generation to generation. Some even claim that recognizing same-gender marriage will be the destruction of humanity's relationship with God. I find it hard to see how basing public policy on such an assertion could be sound or fruitful. Second, the immutability, or unchanging nature, of marriage is cited often as one reason that allowing same-gender marriage is a morally disastrous idea. U.S. Senate Majority Leader and Republican Bill Frist even have proposed that marriage has remained unchanged for at least "3000 years." The claim of immutability taps into a common human desire for stability and constancy. The familiar comforts us -- and different-gender marriage is engrained deeply in the heterosexist fabric of our society. But how sound are these claims of sacredness and immutability? Since individual states issue marriage licenses, should they base policy decisions on subjective notions of sacredness and the relation of an institution to God? Is marriage when facilitated by the State a secular institution? Furthermore, is the immutability thesis a defendable one? Is marriage today really the same institution it was 3000 years ago? Or more precisely, is different-gender marriage -- the "traditional" marriage between "one man and one woman" that we hear about all the time? Really what marriage has always been in the U.S. or in other nations not so heavily affected by Christianity? Where do these claims of sacredness and immutability come from? Mr. Bush, said to be a deeply religious man who felt a "calling from God" to run for the presidency, is welcome to his beliefs, however exclusionary I may feel they are; but they are between him and his god. They are not part of the contract with the American people that he has pledged to uphold. The president would substitute his personal belief system for the equal protection of all citizens in our diverse nation that has been a cornerstone of our constitutional guarantees for centuries. That word "sacred" is surely a key to the heart-wrenching political debate in this country over gay marriage; let's recognize it for what it is -- a component of religious belief and therefore laden with emotional import. However, it has nothing to do with the affairs of state except in theocracies. There is another word whose use and misuse has been equally troubling: the word "marriage" itself. We have unwittingly combined two institutions under a common name. There is, first, the "marriage" for which one gets a license from the government. The license entitles one too many benefits and responsibilities -- corporate, governmental, contractual and otherwise. The absence of such a document can carry civil penalties -- in taxation, in court, and in many nongovernmental realms. Whether governments decide to permit the license to be witnessed or countersigned by a civil official or a religious figure, whether it is used as part of a religious ceremony or not, that convenience does not change the nature of the civil contract itself. The issuance of that license, that municipal document with such important ramifications, was at the center of the action taken dramatically by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's simple directive to his staff. All races and sexes are entitled under our current Constitution to the full benefits and responsibilities of a "marriage license." That includes use of the word "marriage," not a "separate but equal" designation such as "civil unions." There is another use of the word "marriage," however. It is the "marriage made in heaven" -- generally consecrated in churches and synagogues and temples. It is a religious act. Most religions have elected to use the government's license as a precondition or part of their institution, but the two are not the same. In a country dedicated to separation of church and state, religions are welcome to use governmental documents such as licenses for their own purposes, but they have no right to insist that we adopt their beliefs or institutions -- or their definition of what constitutes "marriage." Some religions -- or factions of their adherents -- have strong views on the meaning and nature of marriage. Some believe that marriage ought to be between a man and a woman; others that it is an institution open to one man and several women; still others that it is open only to adherents of the same religion or race or caste. Except to protect women, children and especially vulnerable people from physical or emotional exploitation, the state has no right to tamper with such purely religious views and practices. However benighted and heartless I may consider it, churches may, if they wish, call only man-woman couples "married in the eyes of God." For far too many years in our nation's often ignoble history, those with strong religious or quasi-religious beliefs managed to persuade American governments to deny the secular institution of marriage to people of different races. We have finally come to recognize the horrible historical error of those laws against miscegenation. They have been ruled illegal under the Constitution, and our nation has been enriched immeasurably by the correction of that long-held error. Now, the president and others are asking us not simply to practice discrimination against a significant class of our citizens; they are asking that we write their "sacred" belief in such discrimination into our most basic charter, which is dedicated to elimination of inequality, not promotion of it. The president is entitled to believe whatever he wishes in his heart, but we have no more right as citizens of this pluralistic democracy to write "except gays" into the U.S. Constitution than we do "except colored folks." Same sex marriages should be legalized. Denying them is a violation of religious freedom (civil and religious marriages are two separate institutions). Marriage benefits (such as joint ownership, medical decision-making capacity) should be available to all couples. Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle nowadays with a proven biological causation. Denying them is a violation of religious freedom (civil and religious marriages are two separate institutions). The main reason for denying marriage to gay couples is that all major religions consider homosexuality a sin; however, the First Amendment of the Constitution clearly states that a person's religious views or lack thereof must be protected. Marriage by the state is a secular activity; the government cannot start making laws just because a religion says they should. What's next, should we make taking the Lord's name in vain a criminal activity because Christians consider it a breaking of a commandment? Marriage benefits (such as joint ownership, medical decision-making capacity) should be available to all couples. Marriage is more than a legal status. It affects many things in society such as tax filing status, joint ownership of property, insurance benefits, and agency law. It affects critical medical decisions. For example, if one member of a gay couple that has been together for 20 years gets critically ill, visitation may not even be allowed since the other isn't considered a "spouse or immediate family member". Also, critical medical decisions must often be made when one person is incapacitated; e.g. should a certain surgery be done or not? It is completely unfair to deny these privileges to people because their relationship doesn't fit the state's definition of one. Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle nowadays with a proven biological causation. For too long homosexuality has been considered a form of "deviant sexual behavior". Those making these accusations should examine the history books and the psychological research. Throughout our history going all the way back to ancient Greece, homosexual relationships has existed. The term "lesbian" comes from a Greek island called "Lesbos" where many such couples lived. An overwhelming amount of research has been done showing that homosexuality has a biological causation; not a genetic one, but a biological one. The easiest way to think of it is as a hormonal switch that gets thrown one way or the other. And if you think about it, it makes logical sense. Consider many gays and lesbians you've seen. Not always, but many times, secondary sexual characteristics resemble the opposite sex. In other words, homosexual males often have softer voices. Lesbians may have strong cheekbones and a more masculine body shape. It's all affected by those hormone switches. And why would someone choose to be gay. Do people analyze the situation..."Let's see, I can be discriminated against, ridiculed by friends and co-workers, rejected by my family, told I'm going to hell by the church, subjected to beatings by gay bashers...hmmm, sign me up!" Now, there will be odd cases where people experiment with different types of sex, but you can't just teach people to be gay or not gay for a lifetime. Denying these marriages is a form of minority discrimination. America was founded on the concept that the majority should rule, but the rights of minorities should be protected. It is the main reason we have a Bill of Rights as well as anti-slavery and equal protection amendments. Denying marriage to a homosexual couple is no different than denying marriage to Hispanic or black couples. It doesn't hurt society or anyone in particular. A marriage is a relationship between two people. How does it hurt society or people not involved in the marriage? It is a personal commitment that really is no one else's business. Society shouldn't be dictating what two people can or can't do when no one else is hurt in the process. If the church or certain groups disapprove, that's their right, but it isn't their right to stop it. The only thing that should matter in marriage is love. The number one reason that heterosexuals marry is not to establish legal status, allow joint filing of taxes, or protect each other in medical decision-making. They marry because it is the ultimate expression of a person's love for another. Marriage is a commitment that says "I love you so much that I want to live the rest of my life with you. I want to share the ups and downs, forsake all others, and be together until death do us part." Should it matter that the couple doesn't fit into what society is used to? Some people talk about living wills and other legal contracts that can give homosexuals essentially the same rights as a married couple. If that is the case, why don't all heterosexual couples use these legal maneuvers instead of marriage? Just maybe there's something more to it. The number of child adoptions should increase since gay couples cannot pro-create (although some might see an increase in gay adoptions as an argument against same-sex marriages). Like any heterosexual couples relationship, a same-sex marriage may fuel the desire for a family. Since gay couples cannot have kids naturally, this will likely increase the desire to adopt. Since there are so many kids around the country in need of adoption, this is a good thing. However, others believe a child reared in a same-sex marriage does not develop ideally. Evidence at this point is inconclusive since same-sex adoptions have yet to become widespread. It encourages people to have strong family values and give up high-risk sexual lifestyles. One of the main arguments against gay marriage is that it would further erode family values; however, the opposite is true. The problems related to sexuality in our society such as STD's stem from carefree, frivolous lifestyles; in other words, having frequent, unprotected sex with many partners. Marriage encourages people to settle down and to give up that type of lifestyle. Married people commit themselves to one partner and work to build a life together. Isn't that the type of behavior we want to encourage? President Bush said the "sacred institution" of marriage between a man and a woman must be defended against what he called activist court rulings. Bush briefly brought up the topic, unprompted, while raising money here for a Republican congressional candidate, a day after the New Jersey Supreme Court decided that same-sex couples must be given the same rights as married people. "I believe marriage is a union between a man and a woman," he said. "I believe it's a sacred institution that is critical to the health of our society and the well-being of families, and it must be defended." Bush did not say how it must be defended. But he has advocated a federal ban on gay marriage. Earlier this year, a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage failed to win the needed two-thirds support in both the Senate and House. “Marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society,” Bush said. “Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society.” So why, then, is government involved in marriage at all? Why isn’t it being left to the church where it properly belongs? It has not generally been within the purview of governments to regulate or sanction marriage in any way. This function was left to the churches. In America this all changed in the mid-1800s with the introduction of marriage licenses, which states issue if a white person wanted to marry a black person. Now all states issue marriage licenses to almost everyone who is getting married, leading some churches to complain bitterly and urge their congregations not to obtain marriage licenses. So why does the government want control of marriages, anyway? To take control of you, your property and your children, by your consent. Here’s an example: When you repeat your marriage vows, you enter into a legal contract. There are three parties to that legal contract: 1) you; 2) your spouse; and 3) the state of Ohio. The state is a party to the contract because under its laws, you have certain obligations and responsibilities to each other, to any children you may have, and to Ohio. — Ohio State Bar Association that’s right, you get the marriage license, and your marriage is a civil marriage, not a religious one! God goes right out the window, replaced by the state. There’s also the issue of government benefits. Couples who are married under civil marriages are treated differently by the government, which, one could argue, is itself a violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. But since you agreed to the contract with the state, there’s not much the Constitution can do for you. Speaking of the Constitution, there’s a proposed amendment making its way through Congress which would define marriage in the United States as “only of a legal union of one man and one woman.” It’s absolutely vital that everyone oppose this encroachment into the domain of the church, for this would once and for all eliminate religious marriages and render them unrecognizable in any state; only a civil marriage between you, your spouse and the state could be recognized. Ultimately, the only way to save marriage is to get government out of it altogether: get rid of marriage licensing and any government benefits or penalties for married couples, leaving marriage to be defined by each church. The churches can then work out for themselves, as they always have, whether to recognize marriages made in other churches, and at least in one aspect of life, the state would be out of our bedrooms and out of our churches, synagogues, mosques and other places of worship, as the state doesn’t belong in either place. THE popular notion about marriage and love is that they are synonymous, that they spring from the same motives, and cover the same human needs. Like most popular notions this also rests not on actual facts, but on superstition. Marriage and love have nothing in common; they are as far apart as the poles; are, in fact, antagonistic to each other. No doubt some marriages have been the result of love. Not, however, because love could assert itself only in marriage; much rather is it because few people can completely outgrow a convention. There are to-day large numbers of men and women to whom marriage is naught but a farce, but who submit to it for the sake of public opinion. At any rate, while it is true that some marriages are based on love, and while it is equally true that in some cases love continues in married life, I maintain that it does so regardless of marriage, and not because of it. On the other hand, it is utterly false that love results from marriage. On rare occasions one does hear of a miraculous case of a married couple falling in love after marriage, but on close examination it will be found that it is a mere adjustment to the inevitable. Certainly the growing-used to each other is far away from the spontaneity, the intensity, and beauty of love, without which the intimacy of marriage must prove degrading to both the woman and the man. Marriage is primarily an economic arrangement, an insurance pact. It differs from the ordinary life insurance agreement only in that it is more binding, more exacting. Its returns are insignificantly small compared with the investments. In taking out an insurance policy one pays for it in dollars and cents, always at liberty to discontinue payments. If, however, woman's premium is a husband, she pays for it with her name, her privacy, her self-respect, her very life, "until death doth part." Moreover, the marriage insurance condemns her to life-long dependency, to parasitism, to complete uselessness, individual as well as social. Man, too, pays his toll, but as his sphere is wider, marriage does not limit him as much as woman. He feels his chains more in an economic sense. Thus Dante's motto over Inferno applies with equal force to marriage: "Ye who enter here leave all hope behind." That marriage is a failure none but the very stupid will deny. One has but to glance over the statistics of divorce to realize how bitter a failure marriage really is. Nor will the stereotyped Philistine argument that the laxity of divorce laws and the growing looseness of woman account for the fact that: first, every twelfth marriage ends in divorce; second, that since 1870 divorces have increased from 28 to 73 for every hundred thousand population; third, that adultery, since 1867, as ground for divorce, has increased 270.8 per cent.; fourth, that desertion increased 369.8 per cent. Added to these startling figures is a vast amount of material, dramatic and literary, further elucidating this subject? Robert Herrick, in Together; Pinero, in Mid-Channel; Eugene Walter, in Paid in Full, and scores of other writers are discussing the barrenness, the monotony, the sordidness, the inadequacy of marriage as a factor for harmony and understanding. The thoughtful social student will not content himself with the popular superficial excuse for this phenomenon. He will have to dig down deeper into the very life of the sexes to know why marriage proves so disastrous. Edward Carpenter says that behind every marriage stands the life-long environment of the two sexes; an environment so different from each other that man and woman must remain strangers. Separated by an insurmountable wall of superstition, custom, and habit, marriage has not the potentiality of developing knowledge of, and respect for, each other, without which every union is doomed to failure. Henrik Ibsen, the hater of all social shams, was probably the first to realize this great truth. Nora leaves her husband, not---as the stupid critic would have it---because she is tired of her responsibilities or feels the need of woman's rights, but because she has come to know that for eight years she had lived with a stranger and borne him children. Can there be any thing more humiliating, more degrading than a lifelong proximity between two strangers? No need for the woman to know anything of the man, save his income. As to the knowledge of the woman---what is there to know except that she has a pleasing appearance? We have not yet outgrown the theological myth that woman has no soul, that she is a mere appendix to man, made out of his rib just for the convenience of the gentleman who was so strong that he was afraid of his own shadow. Perchance the poor quality of the material whence woman comes is responsible for her inferiority. At any rate, woman has no soul---what is there to know about her? Besides, the less soul a woman has the greater her asset as a wife, the more readily will she absorb herself in her husband. It is this slavish acquiescence to man's superiority that has kept the marriage institution seemingly intact for so long a period. Now that woman is coming into her own, now that she is actually growing aware of herself as a being outside of the master's grace, the sacred institution of marriage is gradually being undermined, and no amount of sentimental lamentation can stay it. From infancy, almost, the average girl is told that marriage is her ultimate goal; therefore her training and education must be directed towards that end. Like the mute beast fattened for slaughter, she is prepared for that. Yet, strange to say, she is allowed to know much less about her function as wife and mother than the ordinary artisan of his trade. It is indecent and filthy for a respectable girl to know anything of the marital relation. Oh, for the inconsistency of respectability, that needs the marriage vow to turn something which is filthy into the purest and most sacred arrangement that none dare question or criticize. Yet that is exactly the attitude of the average upholder of marriage. The prospective wife and mother are kept in complete ignorance of her only asset in the competitive field---sex. Thus she enters into life-long relations with a man only to find herself shocked, repelled, outraged beyond measure by the most natural and healthy instinct, sex. It is safe to say that a large percentage of the unhappiness, misery, distress, and physical suffering of matrimony are due to the criminal ignorance in sex matters that is being extolled as a great virtue. Nor is it at all an exaggeration when I say that more than one home has been broken up because of this deplorable fact. If, however, woman is free and big enough to learn the mystery of sex without the sanction of State or Church, she will stand condemned as utterly unfit to become the wife of a "good" man, his goodness consisting of an empty head and plenty of money. Can there be anything more outrageous than the idea that a healthy, grown woman, full of life and passion, must deny nature's demand, must subdue her most intense craving, undermine her health and break her spirit, must stunt her vision, abstain from the depth and glory of sex experience until a "good" man comes along to take her unto himself as a wife? That is precisely what marriage means. How can such an arrangement end except in failure? This is one, though not the least important, factor of marriage, which differentiates it from love. Ours is a practical age. The time when Romeo and Juliet risked the wrath of their fathers for love when Gretchen exposed herself to the gossip of her neighbors for love, is no more. If, on rare occasions young people allow themselves the luxury of romance they are taken in care by the elders, drilled and pounded until they become "sensible." The moral lesson instilled in the girl is not whether the man has aroused her love, but rather is it, "How much?" The important and only God of practical American life: Can the man make a living? Can he support a wife? That is the only thing that justifies marriage. Gradually this saturates every thought of the girl; her dreams are not of moonlight and kisses, of laughter and tears; she dreams of shopping tours and bargain counters. This soul-poverty and sordidness are the elements inherent in the marriage institution. The State and the Church approve of no other ideal, simply because it is the one that necessitates the State and Church control of men and women. Doubtless there are people who continue to consider love above dollars and cents. Particularly is this true of that class whom economic necessity has forced to become self-supporting. The tremendous change in woman's position, wrought by that mighty factor, is indeed phenomenal when we reflect that it is but a short time since she has entered the industrial arena. Six million women wage-earners; six million women, who have the equal right with men to be exploited, to be robbed, to go on strike; aye, to starve even. Anything more, my lord? Yes, six million age-workers in every walk of life, from the highest brain work to the most difficult menial labor in the mines and on the railroad tracks; yes, even detectives and policemen. Surely the emancipation is complete. Yet with all that, but a very small number of the vast army of women wage-workers look upon work as a permanent issue, in the same light as does man. No matter how decrepit the latter, he has been taught to be independent, self-supporting. Oh, I know that no one is really independent in our economic tread mill; still, the poorest specimen of a man hates to be a parasite; to be known as such, at any rate. The woman considers her position as worker transitory, to be thrown aside for the first bidder. That is why it is infinitely harder to organize women than men. "Why should I join a union? I am going to get married, to have a home." Has she not been taught from infancy to look upon that as her ultimate calling? She learns soon enough that the home, though not so large a prison as the factory, has more solid doors and bars. It has a keeper so faithful that naught can escape him. The most tragic part, however, is that the home no longer frees her from wage slavery; it only increases her task. According to the latest statistics submitted before a Committee "on labor and wages, and congestion of Population," ten per cent. Of the wage workers in New York City alone are married, yet they must continue to work at the most poorly paid labor in the world. Add to this horrible aspect the drudgery of house work, and what remains of the protection and glory of the home? As a matter of fact, even the middle class girl in marriage cannot speak of her home, since it is the man who creates her sphere. It is not important whether the husband is a brute or a darling. What I wish to prove is that marriage guarantees woman a home only by the grace of her husband. There she moves about in his home, year after year until her aspect of life and human affairs becomes as flat, narrow, and drab as her surroundings. Small wonder if she becomes a nag, petty, quarrelsome, gossipy, unbearable, thus driving the man from the house. She could not go, if she wanted to; there is no place to go. Besides, a short period of married life, of complete surrender of all faculties, absolutely incapacitates the average woman for the outside world. She becomes reckless in appearance, clumsy in her movements, dependent in her decisions, cowardly in her judgment, a weight and a bore, which most men grow to hate and despise. Wonderfully inspiring atmosphere for the bearing of life, is it not? But the child how is it to be protected, if not for marriage? After all, is not that the most important consideration? The sham, the hypocrisy of it! Marriage protecting the child, yet thousands of children destitute and homeless. Marriage protecting the child, yet orphan asylums and reformatories over crowded, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children keeping busy in rescuing the little victims from "loving" parents, to place them under more loving care, the Gerry Society. Oh, the mockery of it! Marriage may have the power to "bring the horse to water," but has it ever made him drink? The law will place the father under arrest, and put him in convict's clothes; but has that ever stilled the hunger of the child? If the parent has no work, or if he hides his identity, what does marriage do then? It invokes the law to bring the man to "justice," to put him safely behind closed doors; his labor, however, goes not to the child, but to the State. The child receives but a blighted memory of its father's stripes. As to the protection of the woman, ---therein lies the curse of marriage. Not that it really protects her, but the very idea is so revolting, such an outrage and insult on life, so degrading to human dignity, as to forever condemn this parasitic institution. It is like that other paternal arrangement ---capitalism. It robs man of his birthright, stunts his growth, poisons his body, keeps him in ignorance, in poverty and dependence, and then institutes charities that thrive on the last vestige of man's self-respect. The institution of marriage makes a parasite of woman, an absolute dependent. It incapacitates her for life's struggle, annihilates her social consciousness, paralyzes her imagination, and then imposes its gracious protection, which is in reality a snare, a travesty on human character. If motherhood is the highest fulfillment of woman's nature, what other protection does it need save love and freedom? Marriage but defiles, outrages, and corrupts her fulfillment. Does it not say to woman, only when you follow me shall you bring forth life? Does it not condemn her to the block; does it not degrade and shame her if she refuses to buy her right to motherhood by selling herself? Does not marriage only sanction motherhood, even though conceived in hatred, in compulsion? Yet, if motherhood be of free choice, of love, of ecstasy, of defiant passion, does it not place a crown of thorns upon an innocent head and carve in letters of blood the hideous epithet, Bastard? Were marriage to contain all the virtues claimed for it, its crimes against motherhood would exclude it forever from the realm of love. Love, the strongest and deepest element in all life, the harbinger of hope, of joy, of ecstasy; love, the defier of all laws, of all conventions; love, the freest, the most powerful molder of human destiny; how can such an all-compelling force be synonymous with that poor little State and Church-begotten weed, marriage? Free love? As if love is anything but free! Man has bought brains, but all the millions in the world have failed to buy love. Man has subdued bodies, but all the power on earth has been unable to subdue love. Man has conquered whole nations, but all his armies could not conquer love. Man has chained and fettered the spirit, but he has been utterly helpless before love. High on a throne, with all the splendor and pomp his gold can command, man is yet poor and desolate, if love passes him by. And if it stays, the poorest hovel is radiant with warmth, with life and color. Thus love has the magic power to make of a beggar a king. Yes, love is free; it can dwell in no other atmosphere. In freedom it gives itself unreservedly, abundantly, completely. All the laws on the statutes, all the courts in the universe, cannot tear it from the soil, once love has taken root. If, however, the soil is sterile, how can marriage make it bear fruit? It is like the last desperate struggle of fleeting life against death. Love needs no protection; it is its own protection. So long as love begets life no child is deserted, or hungry, or famished for the want of affection. I know this to be true. I know women who became mothers in freedom by the men they loved. Few children in wedlock enjoy the care, the protection; the devotion free motherhood is capable of bestowing. The defenders of authority dread the advent of a free motherhood, lest it will rob them of their prey. Who would fight wars? Who would create wealth? Who would make the policeman, the jailer, if woman were to refuse the indiscriminate breeding of children? The race, the race! Shouts the king, the president, the capitalist, the priest. The race must be preserved, though woman be degraded to a mere machine, --- and the marriage institution is our only safety valve against the pernicious sex-awakening of woman. But in vain these frantic efforts to maintain a state of bondage. In vain, too, the edicts of the Church, the mad attacks of rulers, in vain even the arm of the law. Woman no longer wants to be a party to the production of a race of sickly, feeble, decrepit, wretched human beings, who have neither the strength nor moral courage to throw off the yoke of poverty and slavery. Instead she desires fewer and better children, begotten and reared in love and through free choice; not by compulsion, as marriage imposes. Our pseudo-moralists have yet to learn the deep sense of responsibility toward the child that love in freedom has awakened in the breast of woman. Rather would she forego forever the glory of motherhood than bring forth life in an atmosphere that breathes only destruction and death? And if she does become a mother, it is to give to the child the deepest and best her being can yield. To grow with the child is her motto; she knows that in that manner alone call she help build true manhood and womanhood. Ibsen must have had a vision of a free mother, when, with a master stroke, he portrayed Mrs. Alving. She was the ideal mother because she had outgrown marriage and all its horrors, because she had broken her chains, and set her spirit free to soar until it returned a personality, regenerated and strong. Alas, it was too late to rescue her life's joy, her Oswald; but not too late to realize that love in freedom is the only condition of a beautiful life. Those who, like Mrs. Alving, have paid with blood and tears for their spiritual awakening, repudiate marriage as an imposition, a shallow, empty mockery. They know, whether love last but one brief span of time or for eternity, it is the only creative, inspiring, elevating basis for a new race, a new world.