Disgusting story disguised as good

[Scarlett]

I have resisted the urge to post stating my very strong feelings about this thread. But now there's something I just have to say.

 

 

I'm counting this thread as my Book of the Week. :D

 

(three hours, indeed)

 

:D

[*********]

Like it or not, but there are simply some issues where experience does trump theory. Period. I've been both the child and the adult in domestic violence, and there is a different dynamic, *esp* when you're a parent.

 

To encourage women to maintain ANY sort of link w/their abuser is wrong. It's dangerous. It leaves them vulnerable for more abuse.

 

Everyone is free to *believe* whatever they like. *Knowing* comes from experience.

 

Personally, I'm praying the day will come when no one *knows* what it's like to be in an abusive relationship.

 

:grouphug:

 

I'm with you on that last sentiment, Impish.

 

However, I really still reject the 'one must live through a situation to offer an opinion/counsel/really know how they'll react'. I've never been in a house fire, yet I know how I'd react; I'd GET OUT. I've never been in an abusive marriage, yet I know how I'd react.

 

I totally agree that REALITY is usually more challenging, more complex than any hypothetical situation we may make up in order to work through our feelings/beliefs on a certain topic. But I don't accept that fact means I can't *know*, in a general sense, what I would do in a situation I pray I never even find myself in.

 

What of counserlors? Therapists? Various medical professionals? Social workers? Are they not 'qualified' to counsel others, because they may not have been through the EXACT situation their client/patient finds themselves in? Of course they're qualified. Many would say they're qualified because of their study and training. I say the same applies to my religious beliefs. I feel I am qualified to *know* what I would do in a particular situation (in this case, divorce and remarriage), because I have studied the scriptures and am clear on what I understand the Lord's directions to be in this area.

 

Interesting discussion, and I appreciate your POV Impish, regardless of if we agree or not. :001_smile:

 

So, maybe I should start a spin off thread, and those of us who are Christians and who have never been divorced and remarried, can express our superior ethics, judgment, and morality. I mean, even if someone was divorced because they were abused, I guess I can still claim superiority, right? Because I had the spiritual wisdom, and godly judgment to avoid marrying an abusive person? Or, hey, for those who remarried because they were cheated on--guess, I still have the better judgment, right? Cuz I totally was tuned into the spirit and knew which guy would remain faithful to me.

 

Find that attitude repulsive? Yeah, I do, too. That's why I find the whole, "I totally wouldn't do that! I have a greater devotion to commitment and Christian values!" to be one big peeing contest. And exactly 180 degrees opposite of anything Jesus would say or do.

 

I think this is much of the core of the disagreement in this thread.

 

Speaking for myself, I do NOT feel I am superior to anyone simply based on my understanding of divorce and remarriage in the bible. I don't really understand that; so because I believe professing Christians should never remarry if their spouse is living, that automatically translates into "Bethany thinks she is superior/has more spiritual wisdom/Godly judgement than most of us"?

 

It's just not true, nor is it fair.

 

I could accuse those who completely disagree with my understanding of the scripture of being guilty of the same things; "Oh, so-and-so doesn't believe the New Testament says that adultery is the only cause for divorce; they must think they're soooo much better than me, they must think they know their scripture better, they must think they are more in tune with what Jesus meant than I am."

 

But I don't. For example, Mrs. Mungo has made it clear, both in this thread and in past threads, that she does not agree that adultery is the only allowed reason for divorce in the NT. We disagree. That's ok with me. I don't accuse her of having a big head or whatever; I don't accuse her of thinking she has better judgement than me. I don't assume she's judging me for understanding the scripture differently than her. Maybe she does; I don't know her IRL. But I don't assume that, and I don't understand why those of us who have a less 'mainstream' understanding of scripture are so often accused of that.

 

 

 

And for all you are asking for others to think about these real situations, there are a bunch out there who look at you, and similar women, and say you're wrong, you're an adultress, and you're living in sin, and you and your kids should be living with a violent man. While claiming to be having compassion for you.

 

I'd be saying the same thing to them: I call B.S.

 

You know what? I DO agree with the first paragraph you wrote, MINUS the bolded part. I'm that woman.

 

And I DO have compassion for Scarlett. I feel compassion for all the heartache she's been through. She's shared a LOT of it with us here on the boards, and it was REALLY heart-breaking to read.

 

I can have compassion and sympathy for Scarlett WITHOUT agreeing with/condoning her remarriage. I don't think it's all or nothing. Scarlett knows how I feel about both the awful things she went through, as well as her current marital state.

 

And SHE doesn't call B.S. on me. She understands that I totally sympathize with he situation, while at the same time, I hold to my convicitons on divorce and remarriage. I don't see WHY so many in this thread think those two things are mutually exclusive.

[Sputterduck]

So technically, the marriage contract was broken that evening. Technically.

 

Heh. You make an interesting point.

[MariannNOVA]

I have resisted the urge to post stating my very strong feelings about this thread. But now there's something I just have to say.

 

 

I'm counting this thread as my Book of the Week. :D

 

(three hours, indeed)

 

:iagree:

 

Last week it was the Jewish Holiday thread. This week, it is this thread.

[jillian]

I'm with you on that last sentiment, Impish.

 

However, I really still reject the 'one must live through a situation to offer an opinion/counsel/really know how they'll react'. I've never been in a house fire, yet I know how I'd react; I'd GET OUT. I've never been in an abusive marriage, yet I know how I'd react.

 

I totally agree that REALITY is usually more challenging, more complex than any hypothetical situation we may make up in order to work through our feelings/beliefs on a certain topic. But I don't accept that fact means I can't *know*, in a general sense, what I would do in a situation I pray I never even find myself in.

 

What of counserlors? Therapists? Various medical professionals? Social workers? Are they not 'qualified' to counsel others, because they may not have been through the EXACT situation their client/patient finds themselves in? Of course they're qualified. Many would say they're qualified because of their study and training. I say the same applies to my religious beliefs. I feel I am qualified to *know* what I would do in a particular situation (in this case, divorce and remarriage), because I have studied the scriptures and am clear on what I understand the Lord's directions to be in this area.

 

Interesting discussion, and I appreciate your POV Impish, regardless of if we agree or not. :001_smile:

Okay I can address both points (I'm in or have been in both situations).

 

As to the abuse, most women who have never been in that situation say "Just leave" or "I'd just get out and leave him/divorce him/etc" but guess what the psychological abuse that takes place before he hits you the first time is so much more intense. If you have never experienced the taking of your soul by another human being (because that's exactly what it feels like) then no you can't understand why they don't "just leave". I see what you are trying to say but I'm with Impish, if you haven't ever actually seen/been through/experienced that cycle of abuse as the woman who is the target of that rage then it's still all circumstantial that you get it. Trust me I always said I'd never be the woman who let herself get hit or sexually assaulted by her significant other, but I did.

 

As to counselors/therapists, a lot of the learning is on the job. Books only prepare you for so much so that's why many therapists who are set to graduate and are in a practical program (as opposed to research) are required to do intern hours. This is what I have left to do. Ask almost any therapist/counselor/psychologist they will tell you that books give you the framework whereas the practical application of it is what gives you the reality. Seeing a patient with suicidal tendencies is totally different than reading about it. That's also why you have a supervisor so you don't make a misstep and find yourself in legal hot water.

 

I am not touching the religious aspect but I had to address both of those points.

[Joanne]

Further, those who of you who keep saying 'walk a mile.'.....is there NOTHING that you know for absolute certainty you will NEVER do? I'm 46 years old....I know 20 year olds spout off comments and then grow up and see the world for what it is...but at 46 I've thought through/lived through/watched friends in situations and I THINK about what I believe is the RIGHT thing to do- and when there is a clear right/vs. wrong---granted there is not always a 'right' choce--I want to be ready ahead of time to make the right choice.

 

I don't make promises lightly. .

 

 

The time, care, *love*, continuing commitment of the woman in the situation shows she didn't make promises lightly either. I truly, in the bottom of my heart, don't see how she has broken a promise.

 

*I* don't take promises lightly, either. I don't take marriage causually.

 

I am your age (I will be 46 in April). I am a divorced and remarried mom, like you. I was a traditional-ish Christian during a lot of that.

 

Scarlett, there are days I come home to a man who doesn't remember how to unload, load, and run the dishwasher. I come home to man unable to take simple steps to follow up on renewing prescriptions. I come home to a man that is physically checked out in a way that I have to use my daycare skills to engage him: I touch him, get him to make eye contact, and give him simple instructions one at a time.

 

Sometimes he uses words, phrases, and a tone that was never, ever a part of "him". He has a perspective on the world that is not what it used to be. It's not a changed perspective through life experience, but changed because of toxic physiology. I won't post about personal habits, sex, etc.

 

 

It is not like being married. He is not the man I married. Some days, he's not a man except for how many years he's lived.

 

You (the general you) don't really know a game changer like this until you are in the game. You can say you understand it "changes everything" but you really, really don't until you functionally see that.

 

I promised to love, honor, cherish the man I married. I will continue to do so. But, in the life situation I am in, I believe that the woman in the story continued to, up to and through her new marriage.

[SailorMom]

I think she's caring for a man she loves, while continuing on with her own happiness. God bless her.

 

:iagree:

 

The story terrifies me. I can't imagine losing my DH that way. Makes my heart break for her. I don't know what I would do. No one knows what they would do. No one. Period. Dot. I don't care what anyone thinks they KNOW they would do. No one knows.

 

No one here has "walked a mile" in their shoes. No one here has a right to judge, I don't care what a religion or a book tells them. That same religion says that we cannot be the judge of man, that only God will judge. We are supposed love one another.

 

Leave the woman alone.

[Jenny in Florida]

Speaking for myself, I do NOT feel I am superior to anyone simply based on my understanding of divorce and remarriage in the bible. I don't really understand that; so because I believe professing Christians should never remarry if their spouse is living, that automatically translates into "Bethany thinks she is superior/has more spiritual wisdom/Godly judgement than most of us"?

 

It's just not true, nor is it fair.

 

I could accuse those who completely disagree with my understanding of the scripture of being guilty of the same things; "Oh, so-and-so doesn't believe the New Testament says that adultery is the only cause for divorce; they must think they're soooo much better than me, they must think they know their scripture better, they must think they are more in tune with what Jesus meant than I am."

 

But I don't. For example, Mrs. Mungo has made it clear, both in this thread and in past threads, that she does not agree that adultery is the only allowed reason for divorce in the NT. We disagree. That's ok with me. I don't accuse her of having a big head or whatever; I don't accuse her of thinking she has better judgement than me. I don't assume she's judging me for understanding the scripture differently than her. Maybe she does; I don't know her IRL. But I don't assume that, and I don't understand why those of us who have a less 'mainstream' understanding of scripture are so often accused of that.

 

You know what? I DO agree with the first paragraph you wrote, MINUS the bolded part. I'm that woman.

 

And I DO have compassion for Scarlett. I feel compassion for all the heartache she's been through. She's shared a LOT of it with us here on the boards, and it was REALLY heart-breaking to read.

 

I can have compassion and sympathy for Scarlett WITHOUT agreeing with/condoning her remarriage. I don't think it's all or nothing. Scarlett knows how I feel about both the awful things she went through, as well as her current marital state.

 

And SHE doesn't call B.S. on me. She understands that I totally sympathize with he situation, while at the same time, I hold to my convicitons on divorce and remarriage. I don't see WHY so many in this thread think those two things are mutually exclusive.

 

And this, right there, is why I always appreciate your comments, Bethany. Although I often disagree with you, I can always clearly see a good heart and a thoughtful person shining through.

 

My feeling, in my life, is that I have made so many choices that take me outside the mainstream. I expect other people to respect those choices and not think less of me simply because they do not agree. And, because that is how I expect other people to treat me, I would be a terrible hypocrite not to extend that respect to others. I can only do what I believe is best for me and mine. It's not my job to tell other people what is best for them, any more than I want them making those choices for me.

 

It sounds like you approach life and other people from the same place, although our beliefs are very different.

[Mrs Mungo]

But I don't. For example, Mrs. Mungo has made it clear, both in this thread and in past threads, that she does not agree that adultery is the only allowed reason for divorce in the NT. We disagree. That's ok with me. I don't accuse her of having a big head or whatever; I don't accuse her of thinking she has better judgement than me. I don't assume she's judging me for understanding the scripture differently than her. Maybe she does; I don't know her IRL. But I don't assume that, and I don't understand why those of us who have a less 'mainstream' understanding of scripture are so often accused of that.

 

I don't judge you for interpreting scripture differently than I do. However, I will say that if you had a mentally ill dh who had exhibited violence toward you and/or your children, then I would advise you to divorce him to protect your children. Remain married in your heart, never remarry, if you must. If you did not divorce, then I would believe you were endangering your children and would worry for you and them as a result.

 

Here is the difference, imo. One is something that can be changed-you could change your mind and divorce after all at any point. The other cannot be changed-she is already married to someone else.

 

I think encouraging someone to do what you think is right is one thing. Telling someone what they did was wrong and un-Biblical and whatnot...I just don't think it ever comes across in a positive or loving manner.

[Scarlett]

The time, care, *love*, continuing commitment of the woman in the situation shows she didn't make promises lightly either. I truly, in the bottom of my heart, don't see how she has broken a promise.

 

*I* don't take promises lightly, either. I don't take marriage causually.

 

I am your age (I will be 46 in April). I am a divorced and remarried mom, like you. I was a traditional-ish Christian during a lot of that.

 

Scarlett, there are days I come home to a man who doesn't remember how to unload, load, and run the dishwasher. I come home to man unable to take simple steps to follow up on renewing prescriptions. I come home to a man that is physically checked out in a way that I have to use my daycare skills to engage him: I touch him, get him to make eye contact, and give him simple instructions one at a time.

 

Sometimes he uses words, phrases, and a tone that was never, ever a part of "him". He has a perspective on the world that is not what it used to be. It's not a changed perspective through life experience, but changed because of toxic physiology. I won't post about personal habits, sex, etc.

 

 

It is not like being married. He is not the man I married. Some days, he's not a man except for how many years he's lived.

 

You (the general you) don't really know a game changer like this until you are in the game. You can say you understand it "changes everything" but you really, really don't until you functionally see that.

 

I promised to love, honor, cherish the man I married. I will continue to do so.

 

This I admire. And I really feel for you. My heart wept just reading your post. However, I don't think my hurt for you should go so far as to say, 'you know what Joanne, this deal is too much! Find another man!'

[Scarlett]

And I DO have compassion for Scarlett. I feel compassion for all the heartache she's been through. She's shared a LOT of it with us here on the boards, and it was REALLY heart-breaking to read.

 

I can have compassion and sympathy for Scarlett WITHOUT agreeing with/condoning her remarriage. I don't think it's all or nothing. Scarlett knows how I feel about both the awful things she went through, as well as her current marital state.

 

And SHE doesn't call B.S. on me. She understands that I totally sympathize with he situation, while at the same time, I hold to my convicitons on divorce and remarriage. I don't see WHY so many in this thread think those two things are mutually exclusive.

 

Yes! Thank you Bethany. That is what I was trying, unsuccessfully to say.

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't know when I first mentioned God's standards and I don't have the time to review the thread and see. But when I posted the link I wasn't thinking in terms of oh she broke a law of the Bible. I thought 'oh wow! How horrible that she just replaced him!'

 

I think this attitude is why I reacted so strongly to your post.

 

I know a woman in her mid-thirties. Her first husband was killed in the GWOT. Four years later, she started dating again and finally remarried. She had to call about some of the payments to her son because they were wrong (they were overpaying). The woman she spoke to on the phone was really short with her. She finally said, "look, I am trying to do the right thing and sort this out. This is really hard for me, having to re-live this loss and go through this again and again." The government worker said, "well, obviously you didn't love your husband that much since you are remarried."

 

My dh's best friend was murdered several years ago. He and his wife had been high school sweethearts. He got out of the military once they had kids *because* she was afraid of being a young widow. When she started dating she had to delete her in-laws from her Facebook because they made so many nasty comments to her.

 

Even widows whose husbands actually died cannot find a way to move on without people being nasty and judgmental. That attitude makes me sick. Honestly, physically ill. I cannot imagine being so judgmental, but people are. It makes me sad for these women, for the woman in the article, for those on this board facing a similar situation. I just cannot find it in my heart to judge the actions of people who have been through so much.

[Sputterduck]

Actually, the only point of contention I have with you, Bethany, is your belief that someone can only have one "legal" spouse, until that spouse dies. That is to say, you would have put away your husband, after you became a Christian, if he'd been divorced, because you believe he'd still be the husband of his wife.

 

Well, that wouldn't make him any less your husband. Only, he'd be divorced twice. And you'd be a divorcee as well. I base this on what Jesus said to the Samaritan woman. He said that she had had five husbands. Not, "One husband, and four pseudo-husbands, plus the man you're with now."

 

Apparently, Jesus recognized her marriages, because he called them her husbands. Not lovers. And yeah, you can argue those marriages founded in adultery. But, that doesn't make them any less marriages, or Jesus wouldn't not have identified them as her husbands, especially since he differentiated between their relationships with her and the guy she was currently shacking up with.

 

So, what does this mean? In your view, it would have you tear apart another marriage, and another family to accomplish what? If he goes back to her, he was not any less married to you--so he's committing adultery against you, if we hold to your view. If he doesn't go back to her, then he's divorced yet another woman, and committed that sin twice.

 

What exactly is righteous about that situation? I hope you don't get mad at me for asking you point blank, but I was raised in a fundamentalist, strict, literal interpretation of the Bible. I read the whole thing when I was 12, and then several times more over the years. And so when I hear someone say, "According to the Bible," it gets my goat, because it seems to me, you are doing what many people do--appeal to one scripture, but ignore vital pieces of information elsewhere, such as Jesus' statement to the woman at the well.

 

I am curious about this, too, and was actually going to ask this in a pm.

[Scarlett]

I think this attitude is why I reacted so strongly to your post.

 

I know a woman in her mid-thirties. Her first husband was killed in the GWOT. Four years later, she started dating again and finally remarried. She had to call about some of the payments to her son because they were wrong (they were overpaying). The woman she spoke to on the phone was really short with her. She finally said, "look, I am trying to do the right thing and sort this out. This is really hard for me, having to re-live this loss and go through this again and again." The government worker said, "well, obviously you didn't love your husband that much since you are remarried."

 

My dh's best friend was murdered several years ago. He and his wife had been high school sweethearts. He got out of the military once they had kids *because* she was afraid of being a young widow. When she started dating she had to delete her in-laws from her Facebook because they made so many nasty comments to her.

 

Even widows whose husbands actually died cannot find a way to move on without people being nasty and judgmental. That attitude makes me sick. Honestly, physically ill. I cannot imagine being so judgmental, but people are. It makes me sad for these women, for the woman in the article, for those on this board facing a similar situation. I just cannot find it in my heart to judge the actions of people who have been through so much.

 

I do regret that I am harsh. It is a lifelong struggle...but I can assure you I have never said anything remotely like the two things above IRL to anyone who has suffered a loss. I know a 19 year old boy whose wife is now in a vegetative state and he promptly abandoned her. If I ran in to him the nursing home where his wife is (unlikely since he doesn't visit her) I would not say how 'wrong' I believe he is. But when discussing the concept with anyone, or specifics including him, I would have to tell him that I feel the right thing to do is to honor his vow.

 

Clearly I need lessons about how to express my opinion on line without being or being considered harsh. I do thank those, including you Mrs. M, for pointing that out to me.

[*********]

And this, right there, is why I always appreciate your comments, Bethany. Although I often disagree with you, I can always clearly see a good heart and a thoughtful person shining through.

 

My feeling, in my life, is that I have made so many choices that take me outside the mainstream. I expect other people to respect those choices and not think less of me simply because they do not agree. And, because that is how I expect other people to treat me, I would be a terrible hypocrite not to extend that respect to others. I can only do what I believe is best for me and mine. It's not my job to tell other people what is best for them, any more than I want them making those choices for me.

 

It sounds like you approach life and other people from the same place, although our beliefs are very different.

 

Thank you Jenny. That really does mean a lot to me. I know we likely do not hold the same theological beliefs, but I appreciate you extending respect to me regarless of if we agree or not.

[MariannNOVA]

Clearly I need lessons about how to express my opinion on line without being or being considered harsh. I do thank those, including you Mrs. M, for pointing that out to me.

 

Scarlett -- I have been told my entire life that I have a 'fresh mouth.':001_huh:

 

I think it was just the way I was -- or the way my mother was and I learned it from her.....I just thought it was the way to be.

 

In my old age (58 this summer), I have mellowed and learned to express myself in a manner that dh and others find, um, more acceptable, more gracious, more appropriate.

 

If it can happen to me, and IF you think it needs to happen to you, hang in there -- it's a process. It kind of happened to me without my even realizing it.

 

Personally, alot of the 'harsh,' I daresay, had to do with me being married to an abusive person with NPD (and that was th BEST thing about him) and having a mom who I strongly suspect has NPD.

 

I say this all with the most gentle, loving, friendly tone you can imagine. :grouphug:

[Scarlett]

Scarlett -- I have been told my entire life that I have a 'fresh mouth.':001_huh:

 

I think it was just the way I was -- or the way my mother was and I learned it from her.....I just thought it was the way to be.

 

In my old age (58 this summer), I have mellowed and learned to express myself in a manner that dh and others find, um, more acceptable, more gracious, more appropriate.

 

If it can happen to me, and IF you think it needs to happen to you, hang in there -- it's a process. It kind of happened to me without my even realizing it.

 

Personally, alot of the 'harsh,' I daresay, had to do with me being married to an abusive person with NPD (and that was th BEST thing about him) and having a mom who I strongly suspect has NPD.

 

I say this all with the most gentle, loving, friendly tone you can imagine. :grouphug:

 

Thank you. In my old age (46) I am also 'better'. Apparently still not there. :)

[cdrumm4448]

I have not read all 53 pages of the thread. I do agree with Scarlett.

 

I was just thinking about this exact scenario the other day. If something happened to my husband and he became ill, lived in a vegetative state, whatever, I would take care of him as his wife to my dying day. That is what I signed up for. Dumping someone because they are no longer what you need them to be or think they should be is not a part of marriage.

 

The phrase "until death do you part" was in my marriage ceremony.

[elegantlion]

She reconnected with the man she eventually married less than 5 years after her husband first got sick. And although yes she still cares for him she did indeed replace him.

 

 

Maybe this is where it becomes foggy, because I don't think she replaced him. To replace something is to remove it from its current status and move something else in. He was no longer fulfilling the role of spouse, she had void in all those places. He was absent, unable to in any respects be a husband. Robert was not removed further from her life than he already was.

[Scarlett]

You perhaps can't accept that, but I hope you can at least accept that you don't have to be ashamed of yourself. We all have regrets. But forgive yourself, because God did long ago.

 

Hey that is just what my dh says to me! :D

[MrsBasil]

Maybe this is where it becomes foggy, because I don't think she replaced him. To replace something is to remove it from its current status and move something else in. He was no longer fulfilling the role of spouse, she had void in all those places. He was absent, unable to in any respects be a husband. Robert was not removed further from her life than he already was.

 

Right. She also married a man who promised to always help provide the same level care to Robert should something happen to her. He also promised to always be there for her daughters.

 

I can't truly imagine what I would do in this situation, but I might feel profound relief being in a loving mutual relationship and having my daughters and former husband's care secured if something should happen to me. The woman in this story knows how quickly things can go wrong.

[bpskowski]

"But forgive yourself, because God did long ago." (I can't figure out how to quote.). For someone who holds themselves to very high moral standard, this is very hard to do. Especially when you did nothing wrong, but to forgive the person who wronged you.

[6packofun]

Excellent points.

 

I also have the ick feeling. I guess I just have a higher view of marriage and what it is meant to represent (saying this as a Christian) which does NOT change with our circumstances. Sometimes that means one spouse doesn't have a neat and tidy life as they'd planned. (Or both!)

 

On the flip side, I have a lower view of what our "rights" are in this life. I don't believe we have a right to the exact kind of companionship, sex (quantity or quality), romance, family, etc. that we *want* although it sure would be nice to have them. Ditching a covenant relationship based on wants--even loneliness--wouldn't allow me to hold marriage in the honor it deserves OR allow God to use me in that marriage the way HE sees fit.

 

As someone who doesn't feel or think this way about marriage, I think it's pretty easy to rationalize anything according to emotions and "rights".

[Scarlett]

"But forgive yourself, because God did long ago." (I can't figure out how to quote.). For someone who holds themselves to very high moral standard, this is very hard to do. Especially when you did nothing wrong, but to forgive the person who wronged you.

 

I have always preferred to be wronged than to be the one doing the wrong.

[elegantlion]

Right. She also married a man who promised to always help provide the same level care to Robert should something happen to her. He also promised to always be there for her daughters.

 

I can't truly imagine what I would do in this situation, but I might feel profound relief being in a loving mutual relationship and having my daughters and former husband's care secured if something should happen to me. The woman in this story knows how quickly things can go wrong.

 

That is part of the story I hadn't thought of until someone else pointed it out as well. She now has someone in place to provide if she should become absent.

 

I do a lot of genealogy research. In my studies it is not unusual to find second and third spouses married very shortly after the death of a former spouse. It takes a lot to run a household, these people were aware of that and it seems a common practice of the period to combine households. There seems to be little stigma to the practice. They were not faced with many of the moral dilemmas of the modern age, because medical advances have changed.

[CAMom]

Anyway, I don't really know where it'd go from there, it would really depend on so many factors. But I can tell you that if DH were physcially abusive of me, my children and I would be out of his physcial presence. In other words, I would leave. For however long I had to. I don't think I'd ever file for divorce, but if he did, that would be on him. (I would NOT be free to remarry, though). I suppose if his unrepentance went on for long enough, and if I had exhausted all avenues (which, let me say, would definitely include law enforcement if he ever were to physically assault me), I might discuss with my Christian brothers and sisters the possibility of a legal separation. Which as I understand it, would still leave me married to him, but separated as far as financially, etc.

 

I am a conservative Christian as well.

 

I shared this story with my dh and my dd last night. We all thought it was a beautiful story. It would likely not be something we would choose to do but we think it was handled with integrity.

 

I think the mentality of the above quote is dangerous. How could one advise that a woman in an abusive marriage not get a divorce? Really? You want your abuser to still have legal power in your life? They could ruin you financially. You want them making health care decisions for you?

 

Scary thought to me for sure!!

 

(Someone probably already covered this but I am late to the party and the above quote is the furthest I've gotten so far. ;))

[leeannpal]

I have not read all 53 pages of the thread. I do agree with Scarlett.

 

I was just thinking about this exact scenario the other day. If something happened to my husband and he became ill, lived in a vegetative state, whatever, I would take care of him as his wife to my dying day. That is what I signed up for. Dumping someone because they are no longer what you need them to be or think they should be is not a part of marriage.

 

The phrase "until death do you part" was in my marriage ceremony.

 

Once again, I think the fact that young children are involved in the situation makes a huge difference. My husband would not want me to remain unmarried if it meant that our daughter grew up without a father figure in the home. He would not want me to have to work two or three jobs to survive, thereby missing out on my daughter's life.

 

This is a harsh way to put it but, if the doctors hadn't saved him, there would be no problem. No one would question the woman remarrying. So, because her husband lived, albeit in a state akin to a child, her kids have to suffer? This idea smacks of the days of the Pharisees who put the law before compassion.

[Sputterduck]

I am a conservative Christian as well.

 

I shared this story with my dh and my dd last night. We all thought it was a beautiful story. It would likely not be something we would choose to do but we think it was handled with integrity.

 

I think the mentality of the above quote is dangerous. How could one advise that a woman in an abusive marriage not get a divorce? Really? You want your abuser to still have legal power in your life? They could ruin you financially. You want them making health care decisions for you?

 

Scary thought to me for sure!!

 

(Someone probably already covered this but I am late to the party and the above quote is the furthest I've gotten so far. ;))

 

I don't think anyone covered the legal and financial points you just made. Those are important considerations.

[Jenny in Florida]

I do a lot of genealogy research. In my studies it is not unusual to find second and third spouses married very shortly after the death of a former spouse. It takes a lot to run a household, these people were aware of that and it seems a common practice of the period to combine households.

 

I've also read research that suggests people who were happy in their marriages tend to remarry more quickly after the death of a spouse than those who were not. (Obviously, this is not true for everyone and depends largely on an individual's personality and circumstances.)

[Scarlett]

Once again, I think the fact that young children are involved in the situation makes a huge difference. My husband would not want me to remain unmarried if it meant that our daughter grew up without a father figure in the home. He would not want me to have to work two or three jobs to survive, thereby missing out on my daughter's life.

 

This is a harsh way to put it but, if the doctors hadn't saved him, there would be no problem. No one would question the woman remarrying. So, because her husband lived, albeit in a state akin to a child, her kids have to suffer? This idea smacks of the days of the Pharisees who put the law before compassion.

 

This from the article >>PAGE, A JOURNALIST and political speechwriter, had made her peace with her life. She had lost her taste for politics — half the fun had been discussing it with Robert, she says — but she worked full-time as a government-affairs consultant. On the side, she became an advocate for brain-injury and caregiver groups. "I had made up my mind: 'This is what our life is going to be, and I'm okay with that,'" she says.>>

 

Doesn't sound like they were suffering financially. She had time for volunteer work even.

 

And kids grow up with single parents all the time.

[cdrumm4448]

Excellent points.

 

I also have the ick feeling. I guess I just have a higher view of marriage and what it is meant to represent (saying this as a Christian) which does NOT change with our circumstances. Sometimes that means one spouse doesn't have a neat and tidy life as they'd planned. (Or both!)

 

On the flip side, I have a lower view of what our "rights" are in this life. I don't believe we have a right to the exact kind of companionship, sex (quantity or quality), romance, family, etc. that we *want* although it sure would be nice to have them. Ditching a covenant relationship based on wants--even loneliness--wouldn't allow me to hold marriage in the honor it deserves OR allow God to use me in that marriage the way HE sees fit.

 

As someone who doesn't feel or think this way about marriage, I think it's pretty easy to rationalize anything according to emotions and "rights".

 

:iagree:

[cdrumm4448]

Once again, I think the fact that young children are involved in the situation makes a huge difference. My husband would not want me to remain unmarried if it meant that our daughter grew up without a father figure in the home. He would not want me to have to work two or three jobs to survive, thereby missing out on my daughter's life.

 

This is a harsh way to put it but, if the doctors hadn't saved him, there would be no problem. No one would question the woman remarrying. So, because her husband lived, albeit in a state akin to a child, her kids have to suffer? This idea smacks of the days of the Pharisees who put the law before compassion.

 

I'm sure you'll think I'm nuts but I wouldn't remarry if my husband died. I would never replace their father. So, I don't agree that there would be no problem with her remarrying if he had died.