part of the first act of this wonderful four-act drama or play should
be wrought out, and if they are omitted or disregarded, the play
will end in _tragedy, with all the leading actors left dead upon the
stage_!

Now the chief, if not the only, reason why this part of the supreme
act of married life is not always preluded in this way is found in
the _false view_ of what the _marriage ceremony means_, and a wrong
impression as to what it confers upon the parties who say "yes" to
its prescriptions. That is, the common idea is, that the taking of
"marriage vows" bestows certain _rights_ and imposes certain _duties_
upon the new husband and wife. It is thought that such ceremony makes
certain acts _right_ which would _otherwise_ be _wrong_, and that it
establishes the _right_ to engage in such acts, _with or without any
further consultation or consent in the premises_. It makes love a
matter of _contract_, a something _bound by promise and pledge rather
than a free and unfettered effusion of the soul_.

The result of this is that, whereas, before the marriage ceremony both
the man and woman take the utmost care to do everything in their power
to increase, magnify, and retain each other's love, after they
have been granted a "license," and the minister has put their hands
together and prayed over them--after this, they both think they have
a "_cinch_" on each other, that they are bound together by a bond that
cannot be broken, a tie so strong that it will need no further looking
after, but which will "stay put" of its own accord, and which
may therefore be let to shift for itself from the hour of its
pronouncement! Nothing _could be further from the truth than this is_.
And yet it is a common feeling and belief among young married people!