Strengthen marriage this way, say Catholic women of Canada

RECOMMENDATIONS to strengthen marriage have been made by the Canadian Catholic Women's League to a joint SenateCommons committee studying divorce reform.
The league said its 160,000 members did not expect Canadian law to impose their opposition to divorce on others holding different views.
Getting a marriage licence should be made more difficult through the requirement of pre-marriage counselling. Marriages should be guaranteed a "fair chance" of three or five years experience before divorce proceedings could be started, with conciliation attempts required.
The league called for special courts for all family problems, and special legal provisions for children of broken marriages. It appealed for special caution in any definition of cruelty as a ground for divorce so that "the abuses which have crept into the granting of divorce decrees under this heading in other jurisdictions cannot occur" in Canada.
'HELL ON EARTH'
"On the other hand it must not be assumed from our stand on this matter that we are unaware of the fact that while marriages may be made in heaven they must be lived out on earth and that the parties to a marriage are human, not divine.
"We are fully aware that many marriages are, in truth, nothing less than a hell on earth, because of the adultery, the drunkenness, the insanity, the criminality, the beastial conduct or the cruelty of one spouse or the other.
Firstly we would urge that
legislation permitting the courts of the provinces which at the moment do not have the power to grant a judicial separation to be given such power. We would further urge this step because the welfare of the children of such an unhappy marriage would appear to have a better chance of being property considered if a judicial separation were obtained than it has under a separation agreement and certainly where there is no separation agreement by reason of the refusal of one of the parties to such an unhappy marriage to enter into a voluntary separation agreement.
MORE DIFFICULT
Secondly, we would urge that if consideration is being given to making the civil termination of marriage easier, that the preservation of the whole idea of marriage and of family life would better be fostered by making the contracting of marriage itself more difficult. We would, therefore, feel that before any marriage licence is issued that couples contemplating marriage be required to afford themselves of some counselling service which would acquaint them • of the legal, social, biological, financial and other aspects of marriage.
Thirdly, we would feel that in the interests of giving any marriage a fair chance that no application for a divorce be entertained by the courts unless and until at least three years and preferably five years have passed from the date of the marriage and unless it is shown that both spouses have attended a marriage counselling clinic in a sincere effort to reconcile their differences before the trial of the divorce action. We would suggest that such marriage clinics be set up as an adjunct of the courts in much the same manner as the Office of the Official Guardian or of the Public Trustee functions in certain provinces.
Fourthly, we would recommend that all questions relating to family life such as marriage, judicial separation and divorce be handled by a special section of either the County or Supreme Court in each province, in order that the judge might be able to give propert consideration to each case brought before him and not be subjected to pressure to dispose of matrimonial cases as a matter of routine, sandwiching such cases-in between damage actions and negligence cases, as happens in many localities at the present time. We feel that the continuance of family life has sufficiently far-reaching social applications to merit more than a cursory examination and routine inspection. It should be the duty of the judge to do his utmost to effect a reconciliation between the parties if at all possible and to grant a divorce only if all hope of reconciliation has gone.
Fifthly, we would strongly suggest that no divorce be granted unless and until adequate and continuing provisions are made for the welfare of the children in such broken marriage and that it be impressed on both spouses that each has the continuing responsibility of contributing in one way or another towards the welfare of such children.
CRUELTY DEFINITION
Finally, we would earnestly submit that if this Joint Committee should consider widening the grounds of divorce to include what is commonly known as "cruelty" that every effort be made to so define cruelty that the abuses which have crept into the granting of divorce decrees under this heading in other jurisdictions cannot occur. In the event that it is found that the term "cruelty" cannot be precisely defined we would suggest that it not be included as an en-. larged ground for divorce.