is something shocking in this desecration of
what is in itself so holy. I would not vote
to reduce this question of marriage to a mere
civil contract, to be entered into and solemn-
ized before any man of unclean lips, for all I
am worth.
My amendment provides for the religious
scruples of everybody. It provides that if a
man is a Catholic, he shall be married accord-
ing to the rites of the Catholic church; if an
Episcopalian, according to the rites of the
Episcopal church; if a Lutheran, according
to the rites of the Lutheran church; if a Re-
former, according to the rites of the Reformed
church; if a Presbyterian, according to the
rites of the Presbyterian church; if a Metho-
dist, according to the rites of the Methodist
church; if a Universalist,, according to the
rites of the Universalist church; and if a
Quaker, according to the rights of the Society
of Friends.
It is perfectly full and free religious tolera-
tion to all men. It leaves every man to
marry just in the way be thinks best; and
that without the demoralizing influence of
having this thing done on the highway or
byway, in a magistrate's office, and perhaps,
at last in a watchman's box. I am for full,
free religious toleration. I would not deny
it to anybody. The humblest slave in the
land should have it. Every man should be
married just according to the rites and cere-
monies of his own church or sect, I would
that I could throw around this relationship
everything that could chasten and hallow
that ceremony, and bring it up to a pure
ideal; for Heaven knows we are creatures of
such sort, that we require something always
to be raising us up instead of crushing us
down. Our tendencies are unfortunately too
much to the gross, sensuous, material, and
too little to the pure, the spiritual, the ideal.
And we want in every relation in life, and in
every connection, the most of that which will
purify, and ennoble, and elevate.
Believing, as I heartily do, that this rela-
tion is the most important entered into by
human beings, I prefer to see it solemnized
in all cases, in that manner which shall
throw about it. all that is sacred, and good,
and pure, and holy. For that reason I have
offered this amendment which provides for
the special case of the Quaker, who may, if he
chooses, be married by a mayor or a justice
of the peace, and that any one wishing to in-
termarry with them, may do so. Does not
that meet all the requirements of the case?
Does it not provide to the fullest extent for
religious freedom? It does. Then if we are
willing to give them that, why take from us
the other? Why shock our religious feelings,
and even our moral feelings, and our persona
feelings? Why do this at the very moment
we are holding out our hand with the boon
of perfect religious freedom to them? Let us
be as we are, and let the Quakers be as they |
choose. That is my rule; and it is all I have
to say.
Mr. STIRLING. I have a proposition I would
like to offer, and will give notice of, because
I am very desirous of meeting the views of
the gentleman from Harford (Mr. Russell ;)
and because I think the portion of the section
with regard to registration is a matter very
proper for the convention to take some action
upon; and also, because I think it is very
well in this constitution to give some direc-
tions to the legislature with regard to this
subject, that they should clear up one doubt
that has existed in this State; which is,
whether the ceremony, obligations, rights,
and responsibilities of marriage, apply in this
State to anybody but white people. The
amendment I have prepared, does not say
anything about white people or black people;
but it provides that all persons in this State
who are not prohibited by law from being
married, may have some recognized mode of
celebrating their marriage. I think it covers
the case covered by the amendment of the
gentlemen from Harford (Mr. Russell.) I am
not prepared to vote for his amendment, and
shall be compelled to vote against it, unless
some Amendment, of this kind can be adopted
The reason why I object to the proposition
of the gentleman from Harford, is, that I
think it unnecessarily includes what is already
the law upon the subject, which might be
left to stand where it now is.
The amendment I propose will make the
section read:
"The general assembly shall provide by
law for the registration of births, marriages
and deaths, and shall pass laws providing for
the celebration of marriage between any in-
habitants of this State not prohibited by law
from marrying; and shall provide that any
persons prevented by conscientious scruples
from being married by any of the existing
provisions of law, may be married by any
judge of any court of record of this State."
I listened with considerable amazement to
the speech of my friend from Cecil (Mr.
Pugh,) because it seemed as if Maryland had
been denying religious privileges to some-
body. The State of Maryland has gone far
in this matter. When other States and com-
munities declined to recognize, the Society of
Friends, we have made special provision for
them, and excepted them from the provisions
of the general law, providing for the celebra-
tion of marriages by their rites and ceremo-
nies. As to the question suggested by the
gentleman from Harford, I think if represen-
tations of the fact? had been made to the
general assembly in time to be attended to,
they would have been attended to; for I
think all proper conscientious scruples should
have been consulted. ,
But this is no question of religions privileged
or religious liberty. Gentlemen seem to
think that the institution of marriage is a |
