Neither Sacred Nor Moral – Unknown, 7/27/1901

Republished from our predecessor publication Lucifer the Light Bearer

“Marriage is the basis of the family, the family is the basis of the State; if you attack marriage you attack society
and the State and undermine both,” exclaim the advocates of the present “order” of things. Certainly, marriage is
the basis of social development. But we must ascertain which form of marriage is the more moral, or, in other words,
more likely to conduce to the advantage of humanity in all its phases: a marriage founded on the bourgeois idea
of property, and therefore compulsory, with its many attendant evils and mostly imperfect realization of its object
—a social institution beyond the reach of millions—or a marriage founded on the free, untrammelled choice of
love, such as is only possible in a Socialistic society. Even John Stuart Mill, whom no one will suspect of being a
communist, declares: “Marriage is at the present day the only actual form of serfdom recognized by law.” According
to the doctrine of Kant, man and woman together represent an entire being. The healthy development of the race
depends on the moral union of the sexes. The natural exercise of the sexual functions is a necessity for the healthy
development of the individual, whether man or woman. But as man is not only an animal but also a human being,
his strongest and most vehement impulse cannot be fully satisfied by mere physical gratification; he feels the need
of mental affinity to the being with whom he unites himself. When this is absent, sexual intercourse becomes purely
mechanical and is rightly stigmatized as immoral. Such intercourse cannot fulfill the requirements of a higher humanity,
that seeks to ennoble a relationship based on purely physical laws by the mutual personal attraction of two sexual
beings. The man of finer mold demands that this mutual attraction should outlive the consummation of the sexual
act, and extend its elevating influence to the beings called into existence by that act. It is therefore consideration of
the offspring, duties towards it and pleasure in it, which, under the most various social forms, first causes the amatory
relationship of two beings to become permanent.

Every couple which desires to unite in sexual intercourse should ask itself whether its reciprocal bodily and mental
qualities are capable of advantageous intermingling. The reply can only be an unbiased one under two conditions:
firstly, the removal of every interest foreign to the proper purpose of union, namely, gratification of the natural instincts
and the perpetuation of the individual in the propagation of the race; and secondly, a measure of discernment sufficient
to bridle the blindness of passion. As both these conditions, in our modern society, are more frequently absent
than not, it follows as a matter of course that our modern marriage is very far from fulfilling its true purpose and
has therefore no claim to be regarded as either sacred or moral. It is impossible to prove statistically how large a
number of marriages are concluded in the present day on a basis the reverse of that described above. It is in the
interest of those concerned to let their union appear to the world other than that which it really is. Nor has the
modern State, as the representative of Society, any occasion to institute researches the result of which might
throw a curious light on its own proceedings. The principles which the State lays down with regard to the marriage
of numerous categories of its own servants and officials will not bear the application of a standard which the same
State declares obligatory in other cases. We agree that the matrimonial union should only be entered upon by two
persons inspired by mutual love, for the purpose of exercising their natural functions. This motive is rarely pure and
unalloyed. On the contrary, marriage is regarded by most women as a kind of almshouse into which they must
obtain admittance at all cost, while the man, for his part, generally counts up the pecuniary advantages of marriage
with the greatest exactitude. And even into those marriages in which low and egotistic motives have had no place,
the stern reality of life introduces so many elements of disturbance and dissolution, that they but rarely fulfill the
hopes of youthful enthusiasm and passion.

And very naturally. If married life is to afford satisfaction to both husband and wife, not only mutual love and respect
must be present, but also the certainty of possessing that measure of the necessities and agreeables of life which
they consider indispensable for themselves and their children. Gnawing anxiety, the hard struggle for existence, are
the first nails in the coffin of matrimonial happiness and content. And the more fruitful the union is—in other words,
the more the natural purpose of marriage is accomplished—the more pressing does the anxiety become. The peasant,
who congratulates himself on the birth of every calf, who counts with complacency his litter of young pigs, and
reports the number smiling to his neighbor—the same peasant listens gloomily when he hears that his wife has
brought him an addition to the small number of children that he hopes to rear, and all the more gloomily if the
newborn child has the misfortune to be a girl. The simple fact that the birth of a human being, the image of God,
as religious people say, is in so many cases regarded as of very much less importance than that of a domestic
animal, proves the degraded condition in which we live. And here again, it is chiefly the female sex that suffers.
In many respects there is little difference between our ideas and those of ancient and modern barbarisms. The
barbarians put their superfluous girls to death, and most girls were superfluous, in times when wars of extermination
were the order of the day. We are too civilized to kill our daughters, but we mostly treat them as pariahs in society
and in the family. Man, as the stronger, drives them back everywhere in the struggle for existence, and when,
nevertheless, the instinct of self-preservation forces them to compete, they only too often meet the hate and
persecution of the more powerful sex, which fears their competition. In this respect all trades and professions
are alike.

When short-sighted workmen seek to forbid the employment of women altogether—the demand was made,
for instance, in 1877 at the Congress of French Working Men, but rejected by a large majority—their narrow
-mindedness is excusable, for they support their demand by pointing to the undeniable fact that the increasing
employment of female labor is entirely destroying the family life of the workmen, and that a consequent
degeneration of the race is inevitable. But prohibition is impossible. Hundreds and thousands of women are
compelled to seek work in factories and in many other branches in order to keep soul and body together.
Even married women are forced to take part in the competitive struggle, to supplement the earnings of
the husband, who is more often than not unable to support the family alone.