In their reactions against old abuses, writers like Mrs. Gilman or Olive Schreiner try to create a world for women alone, on the political analogy.  Men might be tolerated as fathers; but, to secure political freedom, these leaders would turn to that nebulous creation of social reformers, the state; and it should subsidize the mothers in their periods of need.  But there are only two ingredients out of which a nation can be formed:  one is women; the other is men.  Shall woman in her time of need turn to a state made up of other women, or to a state made up of men?  Obviously it must be to both; and if woman is to depend on men, she might as well depend on man.  No, in the political revolutions we broke up artificial, outworn and unjust combinations; but in this domestic revolution we are breaking up and must readjust the fundamental unit of life.

Men and women must live and work together in the domestic unit, and they cannot do the same things.  Nature has specialized their functions and each must supplement the other.  Even in Germany, the Hausfrau is not going back to an exclusive service of children, cooking and church; nor in America will man continue to be merely the breadwinner and the father of children.  With the enlightenment that is on the way, we shall see that husband and wife can have no antagonistic differences.  Each profits in all that really benefits the other; and slowly we shall shape a new institution based on absolute equality, and at the same time on complementary service.

In this adjustment, legal forms can help or hinder; but they cannot prevent nor compel the final action of human beings.  Sex instinct is stronger than any human law.  The law can, however, help us in regulating conditions of marriage, in settling disputes about common property and children, and in determining how the contract may be set aside when that becomes necessary.

The right of the church to sanction or regulate the family, rests in a belief that marriage involves spiritual changes and obligations that make it a sacrament, in its nature inviolable, and to be administered only by the church, like the sacrament of baptism.  This is a belief resting not in eugenic considerations, nor in the human needs of the persons involved, but in theological dogmas with which this chapter cannot deal.  Hence we shall maintain that the church has no more right to control matters of marriage than it has to interfere in business or political relations.

The state, on the other hand, meaning by the state the whole community, must concern itself with the marriage of its individuals.  The commonwealth must have future citizens, and these should be strong and intelligent; hence it must prevent the breeding of the unfit.  If parents die, or fail in obligations, the community must care for the children.  In case of disagreement between married people, the courts of the community must settle disputes about children and property; hence the state must know when a man and woman determine to live together.  The regulation of marriage certainly belongs to the state, that is, to all of us.