ncern neither the State
nor society, and should be refused all legal character; for it is our
duty to strive and liberate humanity from the tyranny of all imposed
creeds, as we should combat all so-called State religion.

=Civil Marriage.=--What then is civil marriage, and what ought it to
be? Our actual civil marriage is the result of trials and compromises
which require improvement. It is a contract between two persons of
opposite sex whose mutual object is the reproduction of the human
species. In this contract the law is unfortunately too much concerned
with the personal relations of the two contracting parties, and too
little with the interests of their eventual posterity, which
necessitates care and attention on the part of the social legislator.
Moreover, the traditional conception of the dependence of woman
disturbs the purity and justice of civil marriage.

In my opinion, the first fundamental principles of civil marriage
should be absolute legal equality of the two conjoints and complete
separation of property. The momentary amorous intoxication of a woman
should not allow a man to appropriate her property in whole or in
part; only truly barbarous laws could permit such iniquity, and they
should be banished from all the codes of civilized countries.
Moreover, in countries where woman enjoys important rights, the
community of property furnishes those who are unscrupulous with the
means of completely despoiling their husbands.

Further, in common conjugal life, the domestic work of the wife should
not be considered as obligatory and requiring no special
remuneration. Her work has as much right to be considered as that of
the husband, and should be entered to the wife as an asset.

Community of property is so immoral that it should be considered
invalid in case of ulterior dispute, when it has been instituted by
private contract. It is the business of the conjoints to put it in
practice if they wish, so long as they are of one mind. But when
dissensions or divorce take place, it only injures the one who has
remained honest, and at the same time the children.

This is why such contracts ought never be definitely binding to the
conjoints. Even if the marriage is not unhappy, the extravagances or
blunders of one of the conjoints may ruin the whole family, in the
case of common property.

The _duration_ of marriage is very important. If a marriage contract
exacts sexual fidelity till death, divorce is nonsense