where they did not officiate was no marriage at all—that it was a base and unholy alliance, and that the children were illegitimate. ¶ The relationship of man and woman was to them a sin and a shame, but by their approval it was redeemed and made proper and right. To grant a divorce was to admit that the rite did not “take.” Hence, divorce was tabu. The Church isn’t interested in divorce—all the church is fighting for is to hold its position. Then comes civil marriage, which is a contract between the man and the woman from which neither party can withdraw without laying the whole matter before the courts—and the newspapers. And the sacredness of contract takes the place of the sacredness of the rite. “I would hold my friend by no stronger tie than the virtue that is in my soul,” said the gentle Emerson. ¶ Easy divorce would make divorce unnecessary in a vast number of cases, because it would put men and women on their good behavior, and thus do away with incompatibility. That which tends to increase charm of manner can not be bad; that which tends to conform a lover into a lobster is not wholly good. ¶ All over the United States there is a general demand for a uniform divorce law. This is right and well. And the way to bring about this uniformity is to do away with all divorce laws. ¶ If divorce were free, it would probably be no more frequent than it is now. Marriage should be difficult, and divorce easy. As it is now, any preacher will marry anything to anybody for fifty cents ❦ Nightly, clergymen are aroused from sleep to marry couples out of the second-story window. Marriages occur in circus-rings, balloons, show-windows, and yesterday I heard of a wedding in an automobile going on the high clutch at speed-limit, with Papa’s car opening up the cut-off close behind in hot pursuit ❦ Bum, lum, de-dum! Marriage is so serious a matter that it should not be entered upon lightly. The old plan of publishing the bans was founded on commonsense. The couple about to embark should be compelled to take a full month to think about it, and persons absolutely unfit should be debarred. But once entered upon, just two people know whether the venture is a success—and they are the man and the woman. In the name of freedom, let the only parties who are vitally interested decide the issue. ¶ Divorce is a heroic remedy for an awful condition. It is the culmination of a fearful tragedy ❦ I know of nothing worse than incompatibility. There is no hell equal to the hell of having to live with a person who is not your own. Either party who wants a divorce should have it. And the proof that it is desired should be reason sufficient for granting it ❦ Make way for liberty! It isn’t the law that brings a man and a woman together, and no law should be invoked to hold them together. ¶ The police should keep their heavy hands off. What can an outside party know of this most subtle and delicate of all human relations! The love of man for woman and of woman for man is the