IMAGE EXTRACTED FROM MICROFILM BY GREG HAND
Judge Stanley Struble was fed up. As he looked over his docket in 1929, the judge grew suspicious that the Hamilton County Courts were being forced into abetting the immoral practice known as the “trial marriage.” It was increasingly common, Struble noticed, for Ohio teenagers to elope to Northern Kentucky, where marriage laws were much looser, and then, when the match proved unsatisfactory, to ask Ohio courts to annul the union on the basis of their immaturity. Judge Struble told the Cincinnati Post [30 November 1929]:
“These marriages seem to be becoming a habit among youthful couples, and clerks who issue licenses in such cases seem to be interested only in obtaining the fees, the same as would appear the case of those who perform these marriage ceremonies.”
Judge Struble held two annulment appeals aside until further investigation revealed the motivation behind those cases. The couples placed under the microscope were Leola Stouder McCloskey, who testified that she was only 16 when she married 19-year-old William McCloskey in Covington in 1926 and Elizabeth Bruenen Edwards, married at age 16 to Robert Edwards in Newport, also in 1926. In neither case did any testimony reveal why each couple had waited three years before seeking annulment.
IMAGE EXTRACTED FROM MICROFILM BY GREG HAND
Judge Struble was reacting to a controversial topic that had stirred debate in Cincinnati since at least 1906 – the idea that temporary marriages, giving couples a no-fault option to leave the marriage after a brief trial period, were the solution to the social problems of divorce. The idea was most popularly promoted by pioneering anthropologist Elsie Clews Parsons in her 1906 book, “The Family.” Almost from the day it was published, Doctor Parsons’ book was widely (if surreptitiously) read and just as widely condemned. The Post [23 November 1906] was editorially outraged, claiming that it was already too easy to terminate a marriage:
“The reform is needed in the other direction. We need to get rid of the feeling that marriage is a mere experiment.”
In condemning the concept of trial marriage, The Post had lots of company. Doctor Sarah Siewers, one of Cincinnati’s foremost suffragists, told the Post [20 November 1906]:
“Abominable! Who ever heard of a woman making such a fool of herself? Why, the plan Mrs. Parsons proposes means the end of society and the home and a reversal to the dark ages. The whole thing is disgusting to me. The only solution to the divorce problem is for men to behave themselves better and for women to insist on being treated as equals, not as inferiors or slaves.”
Mrs. Jessie Oliphant, described as a “Norwood club woman,” declined to comment:
“It is a very serious problem that Mrs. Parsons has started out to solve. The subject is very distasteful to me and I would rather not discuss it.”
Judge John A Caldwell was four-square against the idea:
“Trial marriage could be no marriage at all, and would ultimately destroy the marriage relation altogether. Such a system would destroy the home, the greatest of all our institutions, and would illegitimatize thousands of children”
The more opinions the Post published in opposition to trial marriage, the more letters it received in support of the concept. Furniture dealer Maurice C. Williams wrote [26 November 1906]:
“The views of Mrs. Parsons, as expressed in the book, ‘The Family,’ are as the faint rays of a dawning day which become gradually more resplendent until the shimmering light gives way to the sun in all its glory, casting its benignant influence over all. So it will be with man. The ideas advanced are along the lines of altruism.”
In the same issue, cabinet maker Fred Walthard (Yes, most of the supporters of trial marriage were men.) wrote:
“The majority of marriage ceremonies still take place in churches or similar places, where a priest is the ‘matador.’ But you don’t find one couple out of a thousand that are advanced enough to seek the judgement of a reliable physician concerning their match. I am afraid the divorce problem will never be solved so long as law and religion have everything to say about marriage and science nothing.”
An unnamed judge of the Hamilton County courts dabbled in statistics and informed the Cincinnati Post [28 October 1909] that all marriages were trial marriages anyway, and that he had the data to prove it. Looking over his cases for the past month, the judge found 140 divorce suits. Of these, 107 requests for divorce were filed by couples married less than 10 years:
“’Proving,’ said a Judge of the Hamilton-co. courts, ‘that marriage is naturally a 10-year-trial proposition. The figures indicate to me that couples who manage to live together for 10 years will in most cases stay married the rest of their lives, and the couples unsuited for each other usually find it out before 10 years are over.”
The anonymous judge scoffed at the idea of a trial marriage, since his experience showed that all marriages had a natural trial period built in. A closer look at his numbers revealed that 73 divorces – more than half of the month’s total – involved marriages that had not yet marked a five-year anniversary.
Spotting a saucy topic, the entertainment industry jumped on the trial marriage bandwagon. Cincinnati audiences enjoyed a play and a couple of silent films based on the trial marriage concept.
As late as the rock ‘n’ roll era, the Post’s medical advice columnist, Dr. George W. Crane, warned young women to avoid over-sexed men who proposed this immoral arrangement [16 September 1958]:
“Trial marriage usually is suggested by a person who may feel sexual infatuation but no true love. And there is a whale of a difference! Trial marriage definitely does NOT benefit the girl. She makes the sacrifices and is likely to be left pregnant and unable to earn a living for herself.”
Facebook Comments