should be performed by ministers of the
church; I think, it a relic of church despot-
ism, instituted originally by particular pow-
erful churches, coming down through the
Various denominations of the Christian
church, and partaking of the old idea of
caste, which associates all ministers together
in some degree for the preservation of their
particular character.
I think the solemnization of marriage by
ministers has now simply become in the State
of Maryland—marriage being regarded as a
civil contract in most of the States of the
Union—a valuable franchise in the hands of
the ministers. Now, I do not desire again to
see in the constitution of Maryland any arti-
cle to identify a particular sect, as the Jews,
and I shall therefore oppose the amendment
of the gentleman from Howard (Mr. Sands,)
because it goes into a long detail to express
what the gentleman from Harford expresses
in a few words. .
Mr. SANDS. Will the gentleman allow me
to read the amendment which I have drawn
up as embodying my views?
" The general assembly shall pass laws pro-
viding that the rites of marriage between any
persons inhabitants of this State, shall not be
celebrated by any person within this State,
unless by some minister of religion, ordained
according to the rites of his or her church,
except in the case of persons members of the
society of Friends, commonly called Quakers,
or persons intermarrying with members of
that persuasion, between whom the marriage
rites may be celebrated by the mayor of any
city of the State or any justice of the peace
thereof, or in the manner usually practiced by
the members of that denomination."
Mr. CUSHING. I say that that amendment
expresses in many words the idea expressed
by the gentleman from Harford in a few
words. I object to the amendment because
it designates the sect commonly called Qua-
kers; and I do not approve in organic law,
or in any other law, singling out particular
sects in any way, shape or form. The law
should be made general.
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. The very amend-
ment of the gentleman from Harford (Mr.
Russell,) specially mentions the society of
Quakers.
Mr. CUSHING. That is the only objection I
have to voting for it; but as it was intro-
duced by one possibly of that persuasion, I
shall not insist upon that objection.
Mr. PUGH. Will the gentleman allow me
to interrupt him to say that the reason why
they are made an exception is that they have
no ministers. Hence it is necessary to men-
tion them in that way.
Mr. CUSHING. There may be a great many
people in the State, who, whether Quakers,
Jews or Christians, may prefer as a mere tes-
timony that they hold marriage to be a civil
contract, to be married by a civil officer.— |
There is no reason why any layman in the
State of Maryland should be forced, for the
purpose of marrying, no matter what may
be his religious views, or absence of religions
views, to go before any minister whatever.
I think the registration of marriages cov-
ered by the last clause, is extremely import-
ant, Notwithstanding the remarks of the
gentleman from Somerset (Mr. Jones) that
probably no legislature would refuse to pass
such a law, the fact remains that they have
refused; and hence it is that there is an effort
here to-day to provide for the solemnization
of marriages in cases in which there is now
in the eye of the law no recognition of the
marriage contract. While I do not want to
encumber our constitution with any specific
laws legalizing marriage in the case of ap-
plicants of any denomination, I would like
to have the law so general as to cover every
class, so that every one may select whether
he will be married by a minister or civil offi-
cer. Therefore I am prepared to vote for the
article without alteration, because I think it
expresses in a few words what many of us
desire.
Mr. MILLER. I was very much surprised to
bear the gentleman from Cecil (Mr. Pugh)
say that the law, as it now stands, violates
the religious rights of the people called Qua-
kers, or that this amendment is going to do
anything towards preserving their religious
rights. Under the law as it now stands,
Quakers can marry according to the rites of
their church. That is very clear. How is it
that we are violating their religious rights or
religious liberty by allowing them to marry
in that way? It is not for that purpose that
the section is offered, it is to enable a person
who is a Quaker to marry somebody who is
not a Quaker. How is that any violation of
his religious liberty or his religious princi-
ples? I do not see how it is, when we allow
full liberty to be married by a minister of
their own denomination, or the rites of their
own denomination; which is clearly the law
as it now stands. They may marry under
the code in such manner as is used or prac-
ticed by the society of people called Quakers.
That is their privilege now. This section is
introduced to enable a person who is a Qua-
ker, contrary to the teachings and principles
of his church or society, to marry somebody
else outside of that society; for they cannot
go into their society to be married before one
of their members, according to the practice of
their church, with a person who is not a
Quaker; because their religious views forbid
such a marriage. That is precisely the reason
this is introduced. How is that to affect the
religions liberty or conscience, or religious
rights of the people.
Mr. ABBOTT. I hope the section will be
adopted as originally proposed by the gentle-
man from Harford (Mr. Russell.) It allows
our people, many of whom believe marriage |
