whole characterised by Christian belief, in which many, perhaps the majority, cannot see the truth about what he (Jesus) taught about marriage, the legislature is justified in making provision for divorce”. Surely however the Report ought to have been logical, and gone on to say that a man and a woman who cannot see the truth about marriage as Christ taught it, are incapable of contracting, or entering into, the kind of marriage that he envisaged; in other words, all secular marriages including marriages in Church are licensed concubinage. Any question of an immortal or permanent bond must reside in the hearts and souls of those concerned, because this bond is not made and is not destroyed by operation of law. A marriage in Church is a marriage till death, only if the parties intended it to be so; if they did not, it isn't, however much the parties may have professed that it was at the time. This is getting into very deep water, but it is the logical outcome of the Church condoning secular divorce.
Lest it be said that I only criticise, I should add that at the time the Report “Putting Asunder” was published, I drafted my own proposals for reform of the substantive divorce law, and also for ancillary relief: that means custody of children, access, and money. However it is all so long ago now, that they are of academic interest only; and I will not trouble the reader with them.