|Stahlian Destroyer of All Bonds|
In other words, if a state announces that justice permits breaking a wedding vow because of a changed desire, by what principle can it insist that citizens maintain their oaths of allegiance when their preferences change. If a woman can walk away from her marriage because her feelings change, without any assignment of fault against her husband, then by what principle of right can a citizen be kept from changing his mind about fealty to the homeland or any other bond?
Presumably, the state must maintain that the foundation of legal duties to the state or others are higher than the mutual duties of man and wife. This claim, Stahl thinks, is manifestly not true. But, perhaps, people today are more wed to the state than anything else. Even today, however, one would struggle to explain why a greater duty is owed to the state than one's spouse. Even today, one would find it difficult to explain why the proclamation that it is just to abandon one's spouse without fault does not mean that it is justice to abandon any bond without fault.