Disgusting story disguised as good

[Iucounu]

He hasn't been abandoned.

She left him because of the disability, and stuffed him in a group home. Split hairs as you will.

[*********]

What's truly bizarre is to claim that a person is a completely different person, then to refer to him as the same person, and see no logical problem with that.:thumbup:

 

I think what Iucounu is meaning (and please, say so if I'm wrong) is that people are referring the woman's 'first' husband as her ex-husband, and referring to the woman's 'second' husband as her husband.

 

See, to some (myself included), Page's husband is still Robert (the man who had the heart attack, the man who is referred to by the artice as the ex-husaband). To some, the fact that Page decided to divorce Robert does not take away his role/title as her husband. He is still her husband until one of them dies. Period.

 

The man that the woman is now LEGALLY married to, Allan, is being referred to in the article as Page's husband. Again, there are some (myself included) that do NOT recognize Allan as Page's husband. Alan is, well, I guess I don't really have a 'title' I'd call him. He is Page's adultery partner, for lack of a more succinct term.

 

*And yes, YES, I am quite aware, intimately in my own life even, that my beliefs on this topic are not widely held. Please, do not feel it necessary to point that out to me. I get it.

 

I'm just trying to clear up what I THINK Iucounu is saying.

 

For the sake of clarity, I believe in my previous post, I refered to Allan has Page's 'second' husband, and Robert as Page's 'first' husband; even though that doesn't accurately represent what *I* believe them to be, it was the best I could come up with for the sake of clarity while posting here.

 

Phew. Iucounu, please correct me if I've misunderstood you.

[Janie Grace]

:confused: Yes I know it is diverse. And yet I am still shocked that so many people think it is a 'beautiful' story.

 

I can't want a discussion and still be shocked?

 

You can be shocked, but to say you are gobsmacked and then ask "do your spouses know that about you?" does not exactly communicate the desire for a discussion nor respect for the other perspective.

[Joy at Home]

She left him because of the disability, and stuffed him in a group home. Split hairs as you will.

 

Righteous indignation, anyone?

 

You have no clue what her life was like for those nine years. You can throw stones and live with the certainty that you would act so much more nobly than her, but I choose to allow for more grace with the understanding that I have not been so unfortunate in my life.

 

Lisa

[Mrs Mungo]

I read of a high powered CEO who left his job to take care of his wife with Alzheimer's. People couldn't understand why he would do that. One person told him, "She doesn't even know who you are." And he said, "But I know who she is."

 

I do think that is beautiful. My dad's mom and my mom's dad took care of their partners, even after they had lost much of their mental capacity. But, that doesn't mean I expect everyone to do the same under *every* circumstance.

 

I think the point that people are trying to make is that people's views on marriage/remarriage are so different that you can't judge them based on your own. <snip>

 

I have no judgement on that woman or her husband. But by the grace of God go I.

 

:iagree:

[Scarlett]

You can be shocked, but to say you are gobsmacked and then ask "do your spouses know that about you?" does not exactly communicate the desire for a discussion nor respect for the other perspective.

 

Really? Because honestly it was a serious question....that was my first thought, 'wow, I wonder if their mates know they would divorce them if they became disabled!' And several answered me that yes their mate knows that and agrees with them on it! That also shocks me.

 

Guess I am easily shocked. ;)

[itsheresomewhere]

This is not a situation you can judge from the outside. Until you have actually been there in her shoes and not viewing from a friends point of view. None of us can say without a doubt what we would do in her place. We may all feel strongly about it now but we can't say what we would do in ten,twenty, etc years from now. I think it is beautiful story with so much love in it.

 

FWIW- sadly in some of these cases people have to divorce in order for the disabled spouse to have health care. My DH has fought severe medical battles for years and we have had this discussion. We both want our spouse to seek out someone who will take care of the children and love us.

[melissel]

She left him because of the disability, and stuffed him in a group home. Split hairs as you will.

 

He went into a group home in 2004 on the advice of his medical team, not because she was tired of caring for him. She didn't reconnect with the old boyfriend until 2008.

[Scarlett]

Righteous indignation, anyone?

 

You have no clue what her life was like for those nine years. You can throw stones and live with the certainty that you would act so much more nobly than her, but I choose to allow for more grace with the understanding that I have not been so unfortunate in my life.

 

Lisa

 

You are asking for approval of what she did to her first husband, not grace and understanding. I would/do give grace and understanding for the situation she found herself in...married to a man with the mind of a child. A difficult situation doesn't change right or wrong. If of course you think it is wrong what she did.

[Corraleno]

She left him because of the disability, and stuffed him in a group home. Split hairs as you will.

 

He was not "stuffed" in a group home, he was placed there at the recommendation of his doctors:

He had severe language problems, couldn't sit still, was confused and frustrated to the point of violence. ... He had little judgment or control over his behavior and was increasingly frustrated... Doctors told Page that Robert would benefit from someplace with regular activities and a set schedule — a routine that was difficult at home with two small children — as well as caregivers to manage his medications. So Robert was moved into Brighton Gardens in Richmond, an assisted-living facility, and later to a similar place called Sunrise.

 

Do you think she should have kept him at home, with small children, despite violent behavior? Do you think you know better than his doctors what is best for him? :confused:

 

Jackie

[LucyStoner]

I think what Iucounu is meaning (and please, say so if I'm wrong) is that people are referring the woman's 'first' husband as her ex-husband, and referring to the woman's 'second' husband as her husband.

 

See, to some (myself included), Page's husband is still Robert (the man who had the heart attack, the man who is referred to by the artice as the ex-husaband). To some, the fact that Page decided to divorce Robert does not take away his role/title as her husband. He is still her husband until one of them dies. Period.

 

The man that the woman is now LEGALLY married to, Allan, is being referred to in the article as Page's husband. Again, there are some (myself included) that do NOT recognize Allan as Page's husband. Alan is, well, I guess I don't really have a 'title' I'd call him. He is Page's adultery partner, for lack of a more succinct term.

 

*And yes, YES, I am quite aware, intimately in my own life even, that my beliefs on this topic are not widely held. Please, do not feel it necessary to point that out to me. I get it.

 

I'm just trying to clear up what I THINK Iucounu is saying.

 

For the sake of clarity, I believe in my previous post, I refered to Allan has Page's 'second' husband, and Robert as Page's 'first' husband; even though that doesn't accurately represent what *I* believe them to be, it was the best I could come up with for the sake of clarity while posting here.

 

Phew. Iucounu, please correct me if I've misunderstood you.

 

Do you think that your beliefs apply to people who do not share your beliefs? To people who are members of a different denomination or entirely different religion? To atheists?

[Dmmetler]

My mother in law, now deceased, divorced my FIL because of his mental illness. It was literally the only way she could get her children the protection they needed to keep them away from a father who had become dangerous to them, and to get the social services support she needed to care for her children, including one with profound disabilities.

 

I have no doubt that she still loved him-and loved him until the day she died.

 

After all of her children were grown and out of the house except for her youngest, who was legally an adult but profoundly disabled, she married and moved in with a gentleman who, basically, just didn't want to be alone anymore,and who had come to enjoy spending time with my MIL at a platonic level. He had the pension and the medical insurance which could help protect my MIL, and had come to enjoy being needed and helping.

 

I do not believe their marriage was ever consummated. They had separate bedrooms, and it very much seemed like two individuals who just plain were good friends and who decided to share a house together to their mutual benefit. My sFIL obviously cared greatly for my MIL-but I think he realized that, in her mind and soul she still loved and grieved for the man she'd originally married, even though he was so drastically changed by his illness.

 

I do not believe God judged her harshly on her death for choosing to accept, towards the end of her life, a roommate who loved her and cared for her.

[Scarlett]

This is not a situation you can judge from the outside. Until you have actually been there in her shoes and not viewing from a friends point of view. None of us can say without a doubt what we would do in her place. We may all feel strongly about it now but we can't say what we would do in ten,twenty, etc years from now.

 

I can say that I will never divorce my dh, regardless of his medical or mental condition, so that I can remarry another man! Why do you think we can't say that?

[ElizaG]

I would never celebrate what this woman is doing, like it's something fabulous, but it certainly fits in with 95% of what I read in the media about marital relationships. It just doesn't stand out to me, since I'm usually in a very small minority with regard to my views on marriage.

:iagree: The article doesn't stand out to me particularly either, though I am surprised that some members of my own faith seem to think it's fine, and that they might do the same thing themselves (unless I'm reading the posts wrong).

 

In case anyone isn't clear on this, for Catholics, any disability happening after marriage -- however serious -- would absolutely not be considered grounds for an annulment. If the marriage was valid to begin with, it does not become invalid, even if you can no longer get your physical or emotional needs met. To us, that isn't even the central purpose of marriage anyway.

 

(While infidelity per se is not grounds for an annulment, as part of a bigger picture, it could suggest that the unfaithful spouse was never willing or able to take on the responsibilities of marriage. In that case, it might have been invalid to begin with. So it's a bit more complex.)

[Joy at Home]

You are asking for approval of what she did to her first husband, not grace and understanding. I would/do give grace and understanding for the situation she found herself in...married to a man with the mind of a child. A difficult situation doesn't change right or wrong. If of course you think it is wrong what she did.

 

 

I'm not asking for approval. You are asking why we are not "disgusted" by her behavior, and I'm explaining why I am not.

[itsheresomewhere]

I can say that I will never divorce my dh, regardless of his medical or mental condition, so that I can remarry another man! Why do you think we can't say that?

 

The quote- never say never. You may change your views years later. Never say never as things can happen and you might not see it now but what about later. You can believe it now as strong as ever but you can not say with out a doubt what you will feel/think/believe years ( and I mean years) down the road.

[itsheresomewhere]

:iagree: The article doesn't stand out to me particularly either, though I am surprised that some members of my own faith seem to think it's fine, and that they might do the same thing themselves (unless I'm reading the posts wrong).

 

In case anyone isn't clear on this, for Catholics, any disability happening after marriage -- however serious -- would absolutely not be considered grounds for an annulment. If the marriage was valid to begin with, it does not become invalid, even if you can no longer get your physical or emotional needs met. To us, that isn't even the central purpose of marriage anyway.

 

(While infidelity per se is not grounds for an annulment, as part of a bigger picture, it could suggest that the unfaithful spouse was never willing or able to take on the responsibilities of marriage. In that case, it might have been invalid to begin with. So it's a bit more complex.)

 

 

Just curious- what happens to if the person has to divorce in order for the disabled spouse to have medical care?

[Mrs Mungo]

I can say that I will never divorce my dh, regardless of his medical or mental condition, so that I can remarry another man! Why do you think we can't say that?

 

You can *say* that all day long, but having BTDT is another thing.

 

I know someone who divorced her dh because as they aged he started hitting on her friends. He starting gambling heavily, draining their savings. He started blowing money on crazy things. He was drinking constantly. He was mean to her. He stopped taking care of himself. She divorced him. It wasn't until a few years later that they realized those signs were the beginning of Alzheimer's Disease. It manifests in many terrible ways, and it's not always obvious.

 

I know someone else who divorced her schizophrenic husband and made sure she had full custody of the kids. That way, if he had a breakdown and tried to take the kids, she would be able to call the police and say, "he's not allowed to have the kids." Sometimes your kids have to come first.

 

Those are two people from my family. People deal with this stuff *every day* and it's not always obvious to outsiders.

[*********]

Do you think that your beliefs apply to people who do not share your beliefs? To people who are members of a different denomination or entirely different religion? To atheists?

 

No, I do not believe the instructions regarding divorce and remarriage in the New Testament apply to those who do not identify as Christian.

 

I *DO* believe they apply to any and all who identify as a Christian, regardless of what 'denomination' they are affiliated with. I believe all Christians are held to the same standard; the Word of God.

 

If someone does not claim to be Christian, that the Word of God's instructions on how to live and walk as Christ has no bearing on them at all. How could it?

 

And yes, I fully acknowledge that I have no idea what religion Page identifies as. I merely assumed that, since a large majority of those living in the US identify as Christian, there is a good chance she does, too. If she does not, then no, I do not hold her to the standard of God's Word.

 

Obviously, I'm also giving my pov as a Christian, and am discussing what I believe to be the biblical standard for marriage.

 

Good question, though. :001_smile: I honestly appreciate the reminder that I should be more clear sometimes in regards to 'who' I am addressing.

[Scarlett]

You can *say* that all day long, but having BTDT is another thing.

 

I know someone who divorced her dh because as they aged he started hitting on her friends. He starting gambling heavily, draining their savings. He started blowing money on crazy things. He was drinking constantly. He was mean to her. He stopped taking care of himself. She divorced him. It wasn't until a few years later that they realized those signs were the beginning of Alzheimer's Disease. It manifests in many terrible ways, and it's not always obvious.

 

I know someone else who divorced her schizophrenic husband and made sure she had full custody of the kids. That way, if he had a breakdown and tried to take the kids, she would be able to call the police and say, "he's not allowed to have the kids." Sometimes your kids have to come first.

 

Those are two people from my family. People deal with this stuff *every day* and it's not always obvious to outsiders.

 

The two situations you described I could see myself doing. A divorce happened to protect a wife and/or children. Far different to me than divorcing in order to remarry.

[Parrothead]

Just curious- what happens to if the person has to divorce in order for the disabled spouse to have medical care?

They would not remarry. At least not unless an annulment could be had.

[Janie Grace]

Righteous indignation, anyone?

 

You have no clue what her life was like for those nine years. You can throw stones and live with the certainty that you would act so much more nobly than her, but I choose to allow for more grace with the understanding that I have not been so unfortunate in my life.

 

Lisa

 

:iagree: The tone of some on this thread who, I assume, are Christians, remind me more of the men with stones than of the One who was writing on the ground. Was He "disgusted" by the woman at the well?

 

Honestly, I think this kind of "older brother" self-righteousness is more disgusting to God than the actions of a woman who has suffered a terrible tragedy and happens not to share my convictions about what marriage vows mean.

[Scarlett]

You can *say* that all day long, but having BTDT is another thing.

 

And I say these things in order to solidify my feelings about right and wrong. I look at situations and say, ':001_huh: THAT would a TOUGH situation to do the right thing in.' And then I have a talk with myself about holding myself to the standard *I* believe is proper EVEN IN difficult situations.

 

So know that I am talking to myself as much as anyone else when I discuss these things.

[ElizaG]

Just curious- what happens to if the person has to divorce in order for the disabled spouse to have medical care?

Civil divorce for practical reasons is considered acceptable in some situations. But it's just a piece of paper, so to speak. From the Catholic perspective, they would still be married in God's eyes.

[Soror]

:iagree: The article doesn't stand out to me particularly either, though I am surprised that some members of my own faith seem to think it's fine, and that they might do the same thing themselves (unless I'm reading the posts wrong).

 

In case anyone isn't clear on this, for Catholics, any disability happening after marriage -- however serious -- would absolutely not be considered grounds for an annulment. If the marriage was valid to begin with, it does not become invalid, even if you can no longer get your physical or emotional needs met. To us, that isn't even the central purpose of marriage anyway.

 

(While infidelity per se is not grounds for an annulment, as part of a bigger picture, it could suggest that the unfaithful spouse was never willing or able to take on the responsibilities of marriage. In that case, it might have been invalid to begin with. So it's a bit more complex.)

 

:iagree: Another Catholic here.

 

Dh's paternal Grandmother has Alzheimer's he has her in a home now as it became too much for him(she would wonder at all hours and get lost- she even managed to escape the home and break a hip before being put in the Alzheimer's unit). It is not something which individuals die soon afterward. It can be decades. I don't know how that isn't analogous.

[Parrothead]

:iagree: The article doesn't stand out to me particularly either, though I am surprised that some members of my own faith seem to think it's fine, and that they might do the same thing themselves (unless I'm reading the posts wrong).

 

In case anyone isn't clear on this, for Catholics, any disability happening after marriage -- however serious -- would absolutely not be considered grounds for an annulment. If the marriage was valid to begin with, it does not become invalid, even if you can no longer get your physical or emotional needs met. To us, that isn't even the central purpose of marriage anyway.

 

(While infidelity per se is not grounds for an annulment, as part of a bigger picture, it could suggest that the unfaithful spouse was never willing or able to take on the responsibilities of marriage. In that case, it might have been invalid to begin with. So it's a bit more complex.)

I don't think this family, who presumably isn't Catholic, should be held up to a religious standard not their own.

[cajunrose]

I have not read all of the responses, but this happened in my family. I understand it more now as and adult than I did as a child. My grandmother was dating a married man. He never moved into her home, but he visited every night and went back to his home. When I was 14, I asked why they never got married. I was told the story then. Rod (her boyfriend) was married to a lady that had a massive stroke. She could not fend for herself at all...was not in any kind of functioning mental capacity. Rod fed her, bathed her, took her to the bathroom, put her to bed, etc. She was not the woman he married, at all. However, he said he married her in sickness and in health and he would not leave her but loved my grandmother. He was in both relationships for the long haul. And he did....for 25 years, dated my grandmother, saw her every night (when the evening nurse came to help out, or their children), but went home to his wife. The wife died about 5 years ago and a month later, Rod married my grandmother and they are living happily ever after.

 

Right or wrong, I respect the fact that he didn't leave his wife and cared for both ladies (financially and emotionally).

[itsheresomewhere]

They would not remarry. At least not unless an annulment could be had.

 

Civil divorce for practical reasons is considered acceptable in some situations. But it's just a piece of paper, so to speak. From the Catholic perspective, they would still be married in God's eyes.

 

Thank you.

[LucyStoner]

I can say that I will never divorce my dh, regardless of his medical or mental condition, so that I can remarry another man! Why do you think we can't say that?

 

Of course you can say that. But you are not only saying that. You are saying that anyone who has a different opinion or belief system than you is disgusting, immoral and wrong. There is a difference.

[*********]

The quote- never say never. You may change your views years later. Never say never as things can happen and you might not see it now but what about later. You can believe it now as strong as ever but you can not say with out a doubt what you will feel/think/believe years ( and I mean years) down the road.

 

 

I get where you and other posters are coming from. I get what you're saying; it's so EASY to say 'I would never do this or that', but is it as EASY to follow through on your convictions when you're faced with hard decisions that directly affect you.

 

All I can say is that my faith is in Christ, and I pray he gives me the strength to stand firm to the end. Which sometimes means making the very awfully hard decision.

 

I've shared on here before about losing my relationship with my beloved sister over this very issue. My sister, who was my best friend my whole life. My big sister, who was my protector and friend through a very hard childhood. My sister, who I love so much that I gave her my kidney. I could not attend her second wedding because of my convictions on this. She made it clear what that would mean. Facing hard consequences in this life should NOT be a reason for comrpomising our convictions and understanding of the Word of God.

 

Yes it's hard. Yes, I wish like anything that I could have my sister back in my life. I pray the Lord leads us to reconciliation, if it is His will. But as hard as it is to not have my sister (and it is hard; I have tears right now just writing about it), I can with total certainty state that I would not go back and change my decision if I could.

 

We are called to be faithful to the Lord, even unto death. Many, many Christians have suffered MUCH greater persecution than I. The scripture also directs us to 'count it all JOY' when we are reviled and persecuted for the sake of Christ.

 

I'm not claiming it's easy. And losing my sister is but one of the trials I've faced since coming to the Lord. I'm sure there are many women, even just here on the board, who could tell story upon story of trials they've endured for the sake of walking like Christ. But it's what we're called to do, and the Lord gives us strength.

 

I pray that if I was in Page's position, the Lord would provide me enough strength to follow what I believe to be the path of Christ in that situation. I'm faaaar from perfect. I make the wrong decisions; I fail the Lord. But we're called to press on to the end; to endure in the faith unto salvation.

[LucyStoner]

 

I *DO* believe they apply to any and all who identify as a Christian, regardless of what 'denomination' they are affiliated with. I believe all Christians are held to the same standard; the Word of God.

 

 

 

My parents were both married before and were devout Catholics. My mom had to get a formal annulment because she had been married before she became Catholic. My dad, born into a Catholic family, did not need an annulment because he had married a non-believer. My mother's first marriage lasted 2 months. My father's first marriage lasted 9 years. Obviously, different denominations have different ways of interpreting the same marriage rules.

[Paintedlady]

It's exactly that simple. Otherwise, marriage vows would read, "In health and in sickness, unless you're so sick for an extended period that I decide that I've had it and want someone new".

 

I fully understand that most people don't take their marriage vows as seriously as they're meant to be taken.

 

:iagree: While the situation might be complicated and difficult, it doesn't change the original marriage vows. Who knew so many marriage vows don't include the words "for better or worse." :confused:

[chepyl]

The word judging gets thrown around alot in these types of discussions. I don't feel like I am judging. Because I believe in the Bible and in the sanctity of marriage, I believe the standard is already set. Saying a standard has been violated is not judging.

 

Your standards. When you define right and wrong by your standards, if not agreed to by the other party, you are judging them based on your standards.

 

She left him because of the disability, and stuffed him in a group home. Split hairs as you will.

 

She did not really leave him. He has the mental capacity of an 11 year old. He does not remember their life together. She cared for him for 8 years, then divorced and remarried while continuing the same standard of care for her first husband.

[bettyandbob]

My child who has a disability has taught me I cannot assess someone else's situation as right or wrong. I make decision based on what I live. I have not lived what this woman lived.

 

1. She cared for her xdh for 8 years.

2. She did not run into a relationship with her current husband and was very cautious about marriage.

3. Her exdh is well cared for, visited and has regular outings. Even if they were still married this is the best he would get.

4. She did consult her church leader, at least in the article I read a few weeks ago.

 

Many people in similar situations are advised to divorce their spouses immediately to preserve family assets. Especially, with young children to raise I wondered if she had not previously been advised to do this.

 

I'm not sure what I would do in the same situation, but from what I read she's made sure to provide exdh the best life he could have whether or not she remarried. Any other assessment is a judgement imposing one person's moral/spiritual system on a situation that one can not truly comprehend without living it.

[*********]

My parents were both married before and were devout Catholics. My mom had to get a formal annulment because she had been married before she became Catholic. My dad, born into a Catholic family, did not need an annulment because he had married a non-believer. My mother's first marriage lasted 2 months. My father's first marriage lasted 9 years. Obviously, different denominations have different ways of interpreting the same marriage rules.

 

Well of course they do. We *have* different denominations because groups of people interpret the scripture differently. I am aware of that. :001_smile:

 

That doesn't change my postion on believing that all Christians are held to the standard of the Word of God. Not 'the Word of God as Bethany understands it'. I freely, openly admit I have been, am, and will likely always be unable to fully understand the mind of God on every topic in the Bible.

[stripe]

Not everyone on here is a member of the same religious denomination with the same exact vows.

 

That should not present an opportunity for us to insult each other by suggesting we don't take our marriages seriously. Good heavens.

[stripe]

I have not read all of the responses, but this happened in my family. I understand it more now as and adult than I did as a child. My grandmother was dating a married man. He never moved into her home, but he visited every night and went back to his home. When I was 14, I asked why they never got married. I was told the story then. Rod (her boyfriend) was married to a lady that had a massive stroke. She could not fend for herself at all...was not in any kind of functioning mental capacity. Rod fed her, bathed her, took her to the bathroom, put her to bed, etc. She was not the woman he married, at all. However, he said he married her in sickness and in health and he would not leave her but loved my grandmother. He was in both relationships for the long haul. And he did....for 25 years, dated my grandmother, saw her every night (when the evening nurse came to help out, or their children), but went home to his wife. The wife died about 5 years ago and a month later, Rod married my grandmother and they are living happily ever after.

 

Right or wrong, I respect the fact that he didn't leave his wife and cared for both ladies (financially and emotionally).

That is worth respecting. But supposing a woman would not have wanted to wait for 25 years for the first wife to die, like, maybe she wanted to have children? These are very tough situations. I do think this points out that divorce does not necessarily mean abandonment. It could mean, "I cannot function as your spouse."

 

Obviously different people have different views about whether one is allowed to have this feeling or act on it.

 

But divorce is not outlawed in many religions.

[Audrey]

http://news.yahoo.com/living-brain-damaged-ex-husband-135900630.html;_ylt=Aje0xa4.6YtpMMExg2xGunXzWed_;_ylu=X3oDMTRvOW4yNGlyBGNjb2RlA2dtcHRvcDEwMDBwb29sd2lraXVwcmVzdARtaXQDTmV3cyBmb3IgeW91BHBrZwNjODUxNDAwMy0zNjFmLTMzN2ItOWY0My00YzcyNjA2OGE1OTEEcG9zAzkEc2V

 

Story of how one woman views 'in sickness and in health.'

 

I think you are hypersensitive because of what your first husband did to you, and I think you are projecting a lot of your own anger onto this story.

 

I don't, however, see this as cheating. I disagree with you, but I understand why you feel this way, though, and why you think this is "disgusting."

[TranquilMind]

I would not judge a person for that choice. He is not the man she married, her first husband was supportive. .

 

Here is my problem with this logic.

 

Article: He had little judgment or control over his behavior and was increasingly frustrated. "He didn't remember his former life," says Page, "but he knew it was something more than he had at the time."

 

 

On the side, she (WIFE) 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.

 

 

(New guy she met)They had been good friends as kids, co-editors of the high school newspaper. He vowed to contact her the next time he was in Richmond to visit his mother. Six months later, he did. And soon after, with Allan in the midst of a divorce, they began talking regularly. It was nice to have an adult to talk to, Page says, and she began to wrestle with feelings that they could be more than friends. "It had never occurred to me at that point to be in a relationship," she says. "It felt disloyal to Robert."

 

 

I wonder why?

 

Page eventually introduced Allan to Robert, and Allan worked to forge his own relationship with Robert, writing him an e-mail every day and taking him to breakfast at IHOP, Robert's favorite, whenever he was in town. Allan felt uneasy at first, guilty about befriending a man with limited cognition while starting up a romance with his wife.

 

 

Again, gee...I wonder why he felt uneasy?

 

Page tiptoed into the subject of dating with Robert, telling him that she and Allan were beginning to be more than just friends, and asking if he understood and was comfortable with that. Robert told her it was fine. "He's a really nice guy," Page says he told her.

 

 

Oh, wait. He doesn't have sufficient cognition to understand anything or continue to be her husband, but simultaneously he has sufficient cognition to understand that his wife has divorced him and is going to have a marriage with this other guy (assuming other guy's divorce came through)?

 

And there was Robert. Marriage would require divorce. Page couldn't imagine that. But another thought eased her mind: "I knew if something happened to me, Allan would take care of Robert, and the girls, of course."

 

 

There is always a rationalization, I suppose, for what we have decided to do. If he ditched his wife, after reconnecting with Page, double ick. Those facts are not clear at all.

 

Page still sees him several times a week, taking him out or to the house, bringing him iced tea for his refrigerator or books of word searches. Allan writes him e-mails every day and takes him to breakfast every Wednesday.

 

 

Well, at least she didn't abandon him. But it still has an ick factor for me. It's been what, 6-8 years since he had his incident? I dunno. I saw a movie like this once. The husband was attracted to another woman, and his wife was shriveling away from some disease (don't recall what it was). He decided to do the right thing and stick with her.

 

Someone at my church did this too. He and his beautiful young wife got married and she was immediately stricken by something that paralyzed and incapacitated her. He took care of her faithfully for 18-20 years, until she died. She couldn't have kids. He could have ditched her in a facility but he didn't. He would bring her into church in her wheelchair and she'd sit there and he would praise the Lord joyfully. It was really something.

 

The week she died, there he was a church that Sunday, praising the Lord. It was very moving.

 

Later that year, he met a wonderful woman at church who had 6 kids. So he got to be the husband and Dad he had imagined after all, and had done it all honorably. They are happily married today.

 

There's something to be said for that old fashioned concept of being honorable.

[ElizaG]

I don't think this family, who presumably isn't Catholic, should be held up to a religious standard not their own.

Well, our faith teaches that the indissolubility of marriage can be known by the natural law. So this would apply to everyone.

 

At the same time, given that so many people in our society have different beliefs about marriage, I didn't find this article all that shocking. I just can't endorse what they did.

 

I think Mamabegood was saying the same thing.

[Word Nerd]

I haven't read all the replies, but I'm a bit surprised at some of the responses given the direction that this similar thread took several months ago.

[Caitilin]

But Bethany, you ae your DH's second wife! Surely you ought not have married him, knowing that he was already married, and his wife still living! How can you possibly square these two incompatible ideas?

[ElizaG]

I haven't read all the replies, but I'm a bit surprised at some of the responses given the direction that this similar thread took several months ago.

:iagree: That thought occurred to me as well. :001_huh:

[*********]

But Bethany, you ae your DH's second wife! Surely you ought not have married him, knowing that he was already married, and his wife still living! How can you possibly square these two incompatible ideas?

 

Nope. He was never married. Forgive me if I have never made that clear, and you would be quite right, if that were true. His oldest child was born when he was just 17; he never married the mother of his two oldest children. Which is why I don't refer to her as his 'ex'; I realize that *could* mean ex-girlfriend, but *most* read it to mean ex-wife.

 

I am my husbands first/only wife. He never made any vows to her or the Lord, they never had any ceremony, no wedding, no marriage certificate, no divorce. (Just trying to make it perfectly clear. :D)

 

Now I am aware that there are those who believe we are 'wed' to whomever we first have, uh, 'relations' with, even without a marriage certificate/wedding/vows/ceremony what have you. but I do not find a biblical basis for that belief.

[Scarlett]

Here is my problem with this logic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wonder why?

 

 

 

Again, gee...I wonder why he felt uneasy?

 

 

 

Oh, wait. He doesn't have sufficient cognition to understand anything or continue to be her husband, but simultaneously he has sufficient cognition to understand that his wife has divorced him and is going to have a marriage with this other guy (assuming other guy's divorce came through)?

 

 

 

There is always a rationalization, I suppose, for what we have decided to do. If he ditched his wife, after reconnecting with Page, double ick. Those facts are not clear at all.

 

 

 

Well, at least she didn't abandon him. But it still has an ick factor for me. It's been what, 6-8 years since he had his incident? I dunno. I saw a movie like this once. The husband was attracted to another woman, and his wife was shriveling away from some disease (don't recall what it was). He decided to do the right thing and stick with her.

 

Someone at my church did this too. He and his beautiful young wife got married and she was immediately stricken by something that paralyzed and incapacitated her. He took care of her faithfully for 18-20 years, until she died. She couldn't have kids. He could have ditched her in a facility but he didn't. He would bring her into church in her wheelchair and she'd sit there and he would praise the Lord joyfully. It was really something.

 

The week she died, there he was a church that Sunday, praising the Lord. It was very moving.

 

Later that year, he met a wonderful woman at church who had 6 kids. So he got to be the husband and Dad he had imagined after all, and had done it all honorably. They are happily married today.

 

There's something to be said for that old fashioned concept of being honorable.

 

Yes! You said much better how I feel. Much less hostile, as I often am.

[Mrs Mungo]

I haven't read all the replies, but I'm a bit surprised at some of the responses given the direction that this similar thread took several months ago.

 

That thread mostly consists of people complaining about Pat Robertson *in general*. Like I said, a family member divorced her husband with Alzheimer's, before knowing that's what it was. Because it starts out with a lot of irrational behaviors.

[Scarlett]

I think you are hypersensitive because of what your first husband did to you, and I think you are projecting a lot of your own anger onto this story.

 

I don't, however, see this as cheating. I disagree with you, but I understand why you feel this way, though, and why you think this is "disgusting."

 

I will concede to this. I also am painfully aware that my first husband would not have stuck by me if I was ill.

[Mrs Mungo]

What I think you are missing here is that brain injury can *completely* alter someone's personality... so you are not married to the same person at all.

 

I was in a support group for friends/family of TBI survivors, and almost *none* of the marriages survived.

 

...but I watched, over a number of years, as each spouse (wives, mostly) struggled to be there for her husband, to get him care and rehab, to support his tentative steps towards what healing and recovery...but almost all of them did not have marriages any more. At all. They were in a parent-child relationship with their spouse.

 

In many cases it was the TBI survivor who ended the marriage - marriage (and parenthood) weren't something he wanted in his new personality... or weren't thing he was capable of doing any more.

 

In all cases, the wife stayed amazingly involved, continued proving care, support, and friendship.

 

It isn't the choice I think I would make, but I can't condemn it at all... not after what I have seen and learned.

 

I feel that your response is like those who cannot understand why someone would disrupt and adoption with a RAD child... you just don't understand what is being dealt with at all.

 

One friend of mine fielded ongoing physical and verbal assault - towards herself, but also towards her... *their* daughter. ...and the other personality differences were so extreme... it really wasn't the same person at all. ....though in her case, she wasn't the one who ended the marriage. He did. (And ended up remarrying a few years later to someone who was a good match for the person he was then... and it was all amazingly cordial. She stayed involved in his care... and his 2nd wife helped when she (my friend) had a surgery.)

 

This is not, in my experience, someone leaving b/c it is too much work, or too hard.... they are ending on paper a marriage that no longer exists in reality... while still giving the same level of commitment and care... I think it is amazing.

 

G-d spare us all from such a situation.

 

I agree with this too. I've seen too many of these situations. They are beyond sad. It's so hard on the family.

[Laura in MI]

I am not sure if this was directed at me or not since you mentioned me being divorced and remarried. Just to be clear, I do believe the Bible allows for remarrige in two cases--death and adultery. My XH is not dead but I had grounds for remarriage. ;)

 

And I don't apply it selectively. I have a dear friend at this moment that through no fault of her own finds herself divorced and not free to pursue remarriage. She is 30 with 3 children under age 6.

This is somewhat off topic, but with the bolded I'm curious what do you think about people who are leaving an abusive marriage? Do you think that's okay?

[TranquilMind]

My problem with the story is that the author clearly says that Robert is impaired and it's unclear how much he really comprehends...but then goes on to act like Robert is totally fine with the situation with his wife and this other man. :confused:

I just wrote this!

 

Interesting how his opinion and judgment is worthy of consideration when he agrees to what she is doing, but otherwise not.