So, I've got that book ("Maidenhood and Motherhood") written about women's health and social issues circa 1887. This is when traditional marriage was still traditional, at least according to modern social conservatives, so let's take a look at their concept of marriage!
Courtship and Engagement Customs
This is a really long and rambling section of the book, so I've condensed key points.
- An engagement is a vow almost as sacred as marriage itself, and it is shameful to admit to being engaged more than once or twice.
- American customs dictated that a girl could select her own husband, but in Europe it was still customary for parents to choose a husband – or at least have a greater say in the matter.
- “No man has the moral or social right to ask a woman to marry him until he is in a position to seriously consider the fulfillment of his promise.”
- “No woman should promise to marry a man when the conditions are such that she cannot think of marriage for years.”
- “The length of time from the beginning of the courtship until an engagement depends largely on the circumstances. With some persons, a few weeks are sufficient to thoroughly understand and judge each other.”
- “It is evident that sufficient time should elapse – perhaps two or three months – to allow the prospective bride to prepare the wedding, and not more than a year or fifteen months.”
- “It is better for the woman to defer marriage until between twenty-two and twenty-five, and it follows that courtship ought not to begin earlier than twenty.”
- It’s taboo to marry someone with disabilities, as those ailments may be passed down to any future children.
- “A great many young women are seized with the semi-romantic notion that they can marry depraved men and reform them. The experiment succeeds about once in a thousand times.”
- Do not marry a man for his wealth alone. Wealth fades. He must have a trade. Marrying a man who lacks a trade is foolish and should be avoided. Men without a trade are “stains upon society.”
- It is totally okay to marry your first cousin.
Their View of "Traditional" Marriage
“ Persons were married in much the same manner that they are in India and China to-day. The woman had little, if anything, to say about it. The persons marrying might or might not love each other, might or might not be mutually suitable; these were accidents if they existed. The marriage was a commercial or economic management entirely.”
The Marriage Contract
“In the eyes of the law, marriage is a civil contract only. It is valid under certain prescribed legal conditions. The law looks no further than the well-being of the citizen. It recognizes the beneficence of marriage and takes control of it. It prescribes who may marry, when, and how. When these regulations are followed, the law ensures to the marriage relation the enjoyment of all the rights and privileges which attach to it.
This, however, is a narrow view on marriage. The institution goes back and beyond all civil enactment, and rests in the authority of Divine appointment and approval. It was known at the very dawn of creation, and bears all the evidence of a necessary condition of human existence. The sacred record clearly asserts that the woman was made for man, implying that without her and apart from her, man was incomplete.
It may be said that marriage is ordained by God in the same manner that man’s nature was ordained by Him. In its formal appointment, however, it is the work of man and has ever been essentially a civil institution.”
The Sanctity of Marriage
“Various notions are held regarding the institution of marriage. Among barbarous nations it ranks little higher than the mating of animals. Among half-civilized and semi-enlightened peoples it is considered a convenient social arrangement, but entitled to no special reverence or respect. Among the highly-enlightened nations it is regarded of the highest importance to the well-being of society, and is guarded by abundant legislation.
Those who believe in a Supreme Lawgiver, and accept the Scriptures as authoritative, elevate this union to the highest place. It has the appointment and sanction of the Author of Being, and once entered into rightly, it binds the soul and body of the parties to it.
In the Roman Catholic Church, marriage is elevated to the dignity and importance of a solemn sacrament which can only be administered in connection with religious ceremonies. In the Established Church of England, and amongst its representatives in America, less importance is attached to the institution. And among all branches of the Protestant Church, marriage is clothed with solemnity, and its obligations are held to be sacredly binding.
Outside those who regard marriage as a Divide institution, the vast majority consider it a social compact, into which both parties must enter voluntarily, and from which there is no release save for weighty causes. All intelligent and thinking people agree, however, no matter from what standpoint marriage is viewed, that while the marriage continues, its claims are absolute upon both husband and wife.
Of the justness of this conviction there can be no question. Marriage is an all-absorbing relation. To a certain extent, both husband and wife lose individuality. But it is a mutual absorption.”
Divorce Will Destroy America
“In some parts of the United States, there are associations calling themselves Christians who wholly ignore the Divine nature of this bond of union, making it altogether a civil institution that may be annulled by the authority of the State for almost any pretense whatsoever. But any legislation whatever that overlooks or sets aside the great principles of the Lawgiver is fraught with baneful influence to the State and will work corruption in the lives and practices of its subjects.”
No matter how this question is viewed, whether from physical, social, or moral standpoint, the disregard paid to the solemn binding nature of the nuptial bonds, and the unlimited liberty assumed by the courts to grant divorce for almost any pretense, is dangerous and will poison the best life of society.
[…]
It well becomes the State to environ the marriage covenant with such bulwarks of legislation as will compel the courts to scrutinize with the most profound care the averment in the petition for a bill of divorcement, that wives only be separated from their husbands when found guilty of infidelity to that bond of union existing between them, by which they become one flesh. What must the depth of moral turpitude existing in the heart of man or woman who can appear without blushing before the social world who may have two faithful spouses yet living, to each of whom external fidelity, before God and man, has been plighted?”
