What does this section propose to do? It
proposes to make it imperative upon the leg-
islature to pass certain laws in reference to
marriage, a subject amply, fully within the
power of the legislature, without any provi-
sion in the constitution to that effect. I ob-
ject to filling the constitution with subjects
that never have been brought into it hereto-
fore, filling it with the various notions of the
different members here. It the arguments
which have been addressed to us here to-
night, in reference to the various amendments
and the original proposition were urged upon
the house of delegates or the senate of Mary-
land, that would be perfectly proper and
right.
A great many complaints have been made
of the waste of time of this body. There can
be no greater waste of time than in discussing
subjects here which properly belong to the
legislative branch of this government. We
are here, as I said before, to limit and restrain
the legislature; not to impose mandates upon
them. I have no objection to the proposition
of the gentleman from Harford. I cannot
say that I should object to the fullest liberty
in relation to the modus of marriage; but this
is not the proper place for it. It is the busi-
ness of the legislature to settle the mode and
manner in which people shall marry, and
what shall be deemed a valid marriage and
what shall not. I object to such subjects be-
ing introduced into this body. it belittles
this body to introduce into it every little
matter that may enter the brain of any mem-
ber. I think the proper business of constitu-
tion-making is really degraded by entering
upon such matters, and filling the constitu-
tion with subjects of this sort. For these
reasons I shall vote against the original pro-
position and every amendment that has been
offered, because I think this is not the place to
introduce them.
Mr. PETER. The gentleman from Baltimore
(Mr. Stirling) seems to think that the whole
of the marriage contract is comprised in a
lew solemn words pronounced by a minister
of the gospel uniting the parties for life. I
do not so understand it. I do not so un-
derstand the teachings of my Bible, that
it is the few solemn words which are pro-
nounced in that ceremony which makes
the married life, and which raises it to the
ideal desired by the gentleman from How-
ard (Mr. Sands.) I care not whether
the gentleman from Howard be married by
a bishop or archbishop; aye, if he be
lieves it to be a religious sacrament he may
go to Rome and be married by the pontiff
himself; would that make his marriage any
more sacred? If he would idealize that mar-
riage, and raise it to that high position, it
must be by his conduct, by his action, and
not by the words pronounced in the cere
mony.
I hold that marriage is sacred, I hold that
16 |
it ought to be respected; that it should not
be carried into the grog-shop, nor into the
gambling tent. But I say that no words of
a minister or a priest, no words of a pontiff
of Rome himself, can make that marriage sa-
cred; because it is the conduct of the man
and of his wife. They are the ones, and they
alone who can make that sacred tie the ideal
fancy which the gentleman from Howard
would have it,
If the gentleman from Howard desires to
be married according to the dictates of his
conscience, according to his religious belief,
I for one would not object. I would be the
last man on earth to interfere with any man.
But; as the gentleman from Baltimore on my
right (Mr. Cushing) well said, I do not
think we ought to designate any church by
its name in this Constitution, if a Quaker
or a Friend is entitled to be married by a ma-
gistrate, or a mayor, or a judge, extend to
me that same privilege if I desire it. Taking
the principle as advocated by the gentleman
from Howard, that a Presbyterian may be
married by a Presbyterian minister, an Epis-
copalian by an Episcopal minister, and a Ro-
man Catholic by a priest, what will you do
with people who do cot belong to any church?
By whom are they to be married ?
Mr. SANDS. Give them their choice.
Mr. PETER. Still they must be married by
some minister. I suppose we all know there
are foul-mouthed ministers as well as foul-
mouthed constables or magistrates. Among
the twelve apostles there was a Judas Isca-
riot. I know men in my county, who have
been constables and magistrates, as honorable
and more so, than some who have worn the
gown and the white cravat, it is not the
man that performs the marriage ceremony
that makes it what God has commanded that
it should be. It is not the manner in which
that ceremony is performed; but it is the
action of the parties, how they fill their re-
spective duties, and their respective situations
in life. They can raise it from the grovelling
earth and dust. They can make it what
Christ would have it, when he made that
comparison alluded to by the gentleman
from Howard.
The gentleman says it would make it a
mockery. A mockery? Is there a gentle-
man within this ball, or anywhere, who would
perform the marriage ceremony as a mere
mockery? Aye, sir; I may say there are
such men in the United States; for I believe
that at the fair held by the sanitary commis-
sion in New York, it was made a mockery
for the purpose of raising money. A minis-
ter there did so belittle his gown, as to come
in and act a part in the mockery of perform-
ing the solemn ceremony of marriage before
the assembled crowd, for the purpose of rais-
ing money for the commission. Would you
not prefer to be married by any honest ma-
gistrate, any honest mayor, any honest con- |
