reasons which have been so ably given. I
only wished to say a word, that I believed it
to be our duty in this day of light and knowl-
edge to keep on in the path which we have
commenced, and keep our record clear
throughout of infringing the rights of anybo-
dy; that we should give all people their rights
while we are about it. That is all I demand.
I ask nothing at your hands but their rights.
Task nothing but what I demand for them as
citizens of the State. I am opposed to every
effort to amend this section so as to deny to
these people their rights.
Mr. TODD. I did not intend to make any
remarks upon the amendment which I have
offered; and I would not have done so had it
not been for the remarks which have fallen
from the lips of the gentleman from Cecil
(Mr. Pugh ) He seems to think that I have
akind of spite or prejudice against the Socie-
ty of Friends, that led me to the course I felt
called upon to pursue in relation to the
amendment offered by the gentleman from
Harford (Mr. Russell.) But, sir, I stand
aide by side with the gentleman from Cecil in
my deep admiration for that class of our
Christian community. There are many things
about them, that I need not here enumerate,
that I admire. I will simply say that I re-
gard them as among the very best classes of
citizens in our community; and I should re-
gret very much to do anything that would be
an affliction to them, or to any individual
member of that church.
My reasons for offering the amendment I
have offered, are, that I regard the institution
of marriage as almost entirely a religious or-
dinance. It was instituted by the Almighty
in the beginning of the world, in the begin-
ning of the existence of human society. In
its religious element, it lies at the very foun-
dation of human society; and should we step
aside and ignore that religious element, the
foundations of human society would he under-
mined; all our social relations would become
null and void, and general moral ruin and
desolation would sweep over our land.
It is acknowledged on all hands to be part-
ly of a civil character; and that legal charac-
ter is recognized by the laws of our State,
in so far as the law requires certain things to
be done in order to the valid solemnization
of that sacred rite. But it seems to me that
if we were to open the doors, and allow this
sacred rite to be solemnized by men, who, as
the gentleman from Somerset (Mr. Jones)
has said, are not only not ministers of the
gospel, but many of them very far removed
from being ever moral men, we should do
much to deprive this sacred institution and
ordinance, ordained by God in the beginning
of the world, and which lies at the very basis
of human society, of that element which tends
to bind society together, and to place human
beings in a proper relation to each other and
to the Almighty. |
Mr. PUGH. Will the gentleman allow me
to ask him a question? The gentleman from
Somerset (Mr. Jones) has said that a great
many magistrates are not as worthy men as
they might be. Is there anything whatever
to prevent me, or any other gentleman who
sees fit to get married, from selecting the most
moral man in the community to perform the
service?
Mr. TODD. That does not do away with
the force of my objection, because if we adopt
the original amendment of the gentleman
from Harford (Mr. Russell,) it certainly
makes marriage, solemnized by the most
wicked man in the community, provided he
be a Justice of the peace, a legal rite. If
some such suggestion as that made by the
gentleman from Howard (Mr. Sands) can he
adopted by this convention, it will meet the
necessities of the case; and I am disposed to
go so far toward relieving our friends of that
church from the embarrassment under which
they labor. Let there be some specific pro-
vision made in their case, so that when it may
be necessary, the marriage rite solemnized in
such cases by a justice of the peace, may be
valid.
So far I am willing to go; but I am not
willing to vote for the amendment as it
stands. Therefore I shall be under the ne-
cessity of adhering to the amendment I pro-
posed.
Mr. CUSHING. I shall vote for the proposi-
tion of the gentleman from Harford, just as
it stands, because I think it comprises, in a
very few words, the whole question of deter-
mining the policy of this State with regard
to marriages; fixing it as a civil contract
alone in the eye of the law; making no in-
vidious distinctions between persons of dif-
ferent religious denominations; going into no
little details; singling out neither Jew
nor Gentile; but allowing any man of any
religions denomination, or any man who has
no religion at all, to stand in the eye of the
law in reference to marriage, exactly as any
other citizen.
I regard this whole idea that has pervaded
the law of Maryland from the beginning un-
til now, that marriage must only be solemn-
ized by a minister of some religious denomi-
nation, or as it is phrased, a minister of the
Christian religion, as being to a certain de-
gree a relic of an old superstition. Finding
nowhere in sacred or profane history that
marriage ever was established as a sacra-
ment, notwithstanding the remarks of the
gentleman from Caroline (Mr. Todd,) I
find no trace that in the marriage of Cain
there was any minister; I find no trace that
for 4,000 years of the history of the world
there was any solemnization of marriage as a
sacrament by any decree of the Almighty or
from any other source; nor do I find in the
Christian religion any one word establishing
marriage as a sacrament or defining that it |
