C.S. Lewis had made the recommendation in Christian Behavior that there should be two sorts of marriage: Christian and contracts solemnized just by the state. This draft of Tolkien's reaction was found in Tolkien's duplicate of Lewis' booklet.
Tolkien started by expressing that he had never been cheerful about Lewis' perspective of Christian "approach" in regards to separate, despite the fact that he couldn't before say why. He would not like to contend if the strategy was correct yet needed to bring up that Lewis' feeling was in view of a contention uncovering a perplexity of thought to be found in his booklet.
Lewis had said he would be irate if Mohammedans attempted to keep whatever remains of us from drinking wine. Tolkien concurred, saying that past simple obstruction they would be blameworthy of treachery by denying others of the widespread human right to utilize wine in a calm manner. Nonetheless, on different pages Lewis demonstrated responsibility to the perspective that Christian marriage is reality about sexual conduct for all humankind, the main street to aggregate wellbeing for all men and ladies. This did not match men's sex-brain science, which Lewis believed was a sense turned out badly. Tolkien said that the Mohammedans contention was a stinking red-herring, and his arrangement was unsupportable on the grounds that it doled out the establishment of Christian marriage. The establishment is the right method for "running the human machine" while Lewis' contention lessened to a method for getting more mileage out of a couple chose machines.
Tolkien said that the larger part of all rehearsing Christians (with whom Lewis deviated) discovered separation an awfulness, the frightfulness of good machines destroyed by abuse. Toleration of separation is toleration of human misuse, just to be endured as an issue of negligible convenient arrangement. Tolkien said that under his limit of space Lewis did not have the chance to develop his strategy of enduring ill-use.
Lewis' two-marriage framework was not, Tolkien watched, offered as only convenient strategy but rather exhibited as though identified with Christian philanthropy. In any case, Tolkien felt that he could just guard it as a practical. A Christian of Lewis' perspective would see the individuals who rehearsed separate as abusing the human machine as surely as the individuals who got intoxicated. This wrong conduct would continues sliding from "not great" to third-rate to awful and after that to accursed. Lewis demonstrated that he himself suspected that the break-down of sex-hesitance had aggravated matters. Anybody, said Tolkien, could see that the simplicity of separation in present times had done extraordinary social damage, a wantonness scarcely limited by legalities wherein law and social custom was empowering capriciousness. It was a circumstance that made the bringing of Christian youth up in Christian sexual ethics unfortunately hard. Tolkien tested Lewis: On what grounds do you party with Christians who oppose endeavors to amplify and make separation simpler? Tolkien just concurred on one bit of his contention, that extending the law to all classes was just (on the off chance that you can have equity in malevolence). Additionally, on what grounds did Lewis base his "two-marriage" framework? From an organic sociological perspective monogamy is likely gainful to a group. On that plane lastingness and inflexible constancy don't show up at first to be vital; all that is obliged would appear to be a high level of sexual self-restraint. In any case, this has never been and can never be accomplished without "authorizations" or religio-legitimate statute contributing the marriage contract with "stunningness".
The last marriage Tolkien had gone to was held under Lewis' framework. The marriage pair wedded before a cleric utilizing one arrangement of equations, vowing deep rooted loyalty (and submission for the lady). At that point they wedded again before a recorder (with in Tolkien's perspective the included indecency of the official being a lady) utilizing another arrangement of equations with no promise of loyalty or submission. It was detestable and silly, said Tolkien, since the first arrangement of promises incorporated the recent as the lesser. The suggestion was that the state did not perceive the presence of their congregation, discovered their promises stupidity, and respected the restricted and impermanent get every one of that was vital for natives. Lewis' sharp division was a counter-lesson conveyed to youthful Christians straight from the serious expressions of the Christian clergyman.