ble for taking the ground he did; for I mis
understood the gentleman from Harford (Mr
Russell) in the same respect. I have a great
many friends among the persons styled
Quakers, and I have been intimate with some
of them, and know a good deal of their cere-
monies; and I certainly understood him to
remark this morning that it was necessary
where they married without the pale of their
church to go into some other State to avoid
church censure. I intended to call attention
to the particular fact; fur I did not know at
the time that he belonged to that sect. I
know instances in our county where the sec
called Quakers have been married by minis-
ters there, and were subjected to church cen-
sure,
I would cheerfully vote for the proposition
of the gentleman from Howard (Mr. Sands,
but I believe the original proposition to be
more liberal than that, I would say, let them
be married how they please, by whom they
please, provided the matter is entered on the
records of the county; for I think that is the
great object to be arrived at at last. Let the
fact exist in the records of our courts that
they are man and wife.
I will go a little further. I will strike out
all possibility of their being divorced after-
wards. I will leave no grounds for divorce,
but let marriage be final. "What God hath
joined together let nut man put asunder."
If we adopt that in connection with this, I
think it will do; that whether married by a
constable, magistrate, judge, or even by a
minister, if the gentleman from Caroline pre-
fers that, it cannot be untied hereafter. That
should be our great effort, so to tie the knot
that it may remain tied. I should propose
to amend the amendment of the gentleman
from Howard to place that in it, that any
person may be married in such manner as
they please, and provided the same be en-
tered upon the records of the courts of the
county, they shall be man and wife. That is
the way I want it to read.
'Mr. SANDS. I agree with my friends from
Baltimore, and with my friend from Somer-
set, that in the merely legal aspect of this
question marriage is a civil contract. But it
has other and almost as important aspects as
the legal aspect. One very large denomina-
tion, at least, in the State of Maryland, re-
gard marriage as a sacrament. Do you not
think it would be shocking the religious sense
of that entire religions body to have what
they rightfully or wrongfully regard as a sac-
rament—for, rightfully or wrongfully, that
is their religious opinion, and they have as
good a right to it as yon have to yours or I
to mine—degraded into a mere contract that
a constable or anybody else whatever may
solemnize? Do you not fly right in the face
of the religious convictions of that large body
of people? Certainly yon do. This is a rite
or ceremony which has been as carefully |
hedged about, and perhaps more carefully,
than any other on earth.
Gentlemen talk about its being a civil con-
tract. I say it is a religious relation; and I
put it to my friend from Somerset (Mr. Jones,)
who corrects me when I get wrong in the
Bible, whether our Divine Master, in seeking
a type for the union between him and his
church, did not select this very marriage rela-
tion as the type of that intimate living union
which subsists between the Divine Redeemer
and his church? This is the union which
should last forever and forever. This is the
thing of all things most inviolate. This is
the thing selected by the Divine Master to
typify the intimacy of connection between
him and his church.
And this is to be dragged into every grog-
shop, if you please, into every magistrate's
office, every constable's little tent, every
watchman's box. It is horrible. It is a dese-
cration of the purest union that this world ever
sees. Only think of the marriage ceremony,
the sacred holy bargain of that ceremony,
" whom God has joined together let no man
put asunder." Only think of those holy
words dropping from the lips of some half-
drunken constable, lips profane, befouled,
perhaps, the very moment before by some—
Mr. JOKES, of Somerset. I rise to a point
of order. Constables are not included in this
proposition.
Mr. STIRLING. Some justices of the peace
are just as bad.
The PRESIDENT overruled the point of" order.
Mr. SANDS. I say, just think of this sacred
and holy formula dropping from lips befouled,
perhaps, the moment, belore by some coarse
levity. Yon are making a mockery of the
holiest thing that humanity knows.
As to the question of religious liberty, if
the Quaker wants his religious liberty we are
willing to give it to him, and say to him that
if he wants to be married by a justice of the
peace, or a mayor, or a judge, he may go and
thus be married. Ought he not to be satis-
fied, and say: that is all I want; that is
religious liberty to me, and I do not want to
touch anybody else's religious views,
Mr. ABBOTT. Why not give all the same
privilege ?
Mr. SANDS. Anybody can turn Quaker,
and anybody can get married as the Quakers
marry, under this provision. I know of only
one church, the great Catholic church, which
regards marriage as a sacrament. How far
the Episcopalians go I do not know. I am
not theologian enough; and am not very well
versed in the responses. But I know we have
a large body of people among us who do re-
gard this as a sacrament—not a ceremony,
but a sacrament—just as much so as taking
the bread and wine. I confess that to me
even—1 was going to say not a Christian, for
although I believe in the system, I am not at
all proverbial for any piety—even to me there |
