Well, duh!

But ... but ... this will make divorced parents feel guilty. We can't have that.

Now I'd like to see studies done on children who grew up in "non-traditional" families.

L. Rogers. It's not likely you'll see those studies unless you plan to live until hell freezes over.

erp: Actually there have been such studies. They pick a small number of rich lesbian couples and rich single mothers and show that their kids turn out fine. Therefore, mother & father centered familes are unnecessary!

This month's Atlantic contains a brief back-and-forth in the letter section regarding a book review written by Caitlin Flanagan that is one of the most jaw-droppingly wonderful things I have ever read. I'll let others enjoy it for themselves without spoiling it at all. If you're not a subscriber, check it out next time you're at the bookstore...

I think divorce should be granted with proof of "cause," such as sexual abuse or violent drunkenness on the part of one spouse. In such cases, the ongoing marriage really is worse for the child than divorce.

Thanks b. Our local library still gets the Atlantic. I'll check it out.

o/t Even after two years, when I fire up my laptop on Wednesday mornings, I think of Michael Kelly and how much I miss his brilliant columns in the WaPo. Sometimes I think he is channeling Mark Steyn, or is it the other way round, because I had never heard of Steyn until just about the time Kelly was killed and there is a bit of similarity in the ways their minds worked.

rds:

Divorce is a license to re-marry, not permission to separate. While I think some around here are too limited in their view of what justifies a separation, the proposition that parents shouldn't re-marry until the kids are grown has a lot to say for it. Not without some tough trade-offs, but divorce law should be about the least bad, not the perfect.

Peter: Sometimes if people know they have to work it out, they will.

Robert:

Yes, and sometimes people have to be told point blank that they don't come first anymore.

But I am still very troubled by the plight of the young, naive person (ok, woman)who marries with all the good faith and commitment in the world and discovers very early that the guy is a betrayer, abuser, addict or deserter. She tries, but he is hopless, meaning he won't change. So she is stuck with a young one or two and undependable support and must turn down a promising second chance with a decent guy? Sorry, but "Life's rough" is a little too much for me in that case.

Orrin's on the right track, but the flaw in his reasoning is that he sees the parties as a couple and directs his comments to what "they" should do and how "they" should respond to matrimonial trouble. The hard truth is that in many cases there ain't no "they" anymore.

The couple is only a party. Society and the kids are the other and more important parties.

Sure, and that has to be stated repeatedly because we've been acting for decades as if society and the kids had nothing to say about it. But to go whole hog the other way and say it's all about duty and that the couple just shuts up and does the work whatever happens because their happiness and expectations don't matter eventually leads you to the point where you give people a free ride to break their vows and ignore the damage caused by the transgressor. That's pretty much the modern approach to custody and alimony--who cares about conduct. Aren't you saying the same thing?

Yes, I'm down with them breaking their vows to each other so long as they keep the form in place. Children of unhappy marriages turn out better than those of great divorces.

Yes, they definitely do for the most part (not at the extremes though). The problem is that you are not reflecting enough on the meaning of the vows. They are reciprocal, not independent, promises. No, that doesn't mean they are conditional in a legalistic, contractual sense, but it does mean there is a mutual commitment to fidelity, kindness, support and commitment that both are entitled to rely upon, and need to rely upon for their own mental and spiritual health and their prosperity, not to mention the comfort and security of their children. If that committment is broken, on what theory of justice or sanctity to you tell the innocent party he/she must keep their vows in the face of betrayal and effectively ignore, if not legitimize, the transgressions.

Reflect a bit on the notion of betrayal. Family feuds and civil wars are the most brutal and destructive for a good and very human reason. To commit yourself in word and deed to sacrifice, work, deny, etc. for another may be the essence of love, but it is also the source of a debilitating rage if one is betrayed. It's a package. If you want someone to be faithful to those vows for a higher purpose than pleasure or self-fulfillment, you can't be casual about those who break them selfishly without declaring that the parties are so inconsequential in the face of "the children" that the just and honourable are no more deserving of public protection than the cheats and abusers. Put another way, if you want the self-denying commitment, you have to honour and sublimate the rage of betrayal. You can't insist on ifelong solemnity about marriage vows and then be off-hand about their breach. To simply say "Your pain and rage and misery don't matter, because you don't count for anything, but we still expect you to work and sacrifice 24/7 whatever happens because we only care about the kids and society" is horribly unjust and I don't really think that was the theory of marriage at any time in the history of the West.

You aren't challenging the Enlightenment here. You're up against sin, human nature and the frailty of mankind.

Peter:

Yes, in a situation where there is no justice available it is proper that the couple suffer, not the children or the society at large.

Orrin:

No, Orrin, "the couple" doesn't suffer. The innocent party does. Are you saying society shouldn't care?

Peter is right.

Additionally, the study is flawed before it gets out the door. The two populations are not the same, and the dissimilarities act to greatly amplify whatever consequence there might be.

Peter:

Yes. Otherwise folks like Jeff think it should all be anout themselves. Getting married and having children is about taking responsibility--nothing wrong with being held to it.

But you are avoiding the issue by continuing to talk about the couple as a unity. You are right that marriage shouldn't depend on good feelings or personal growth or self-fulfillment or good sex, blah, blah, but we know very well that certain kinds of objective behaviour cannot be abided by most folks without very destructive consequences. Wisdom of the ancestors. Pretending everyone is tough enough to shrug them off (especially if they continue)and keep on truckin' is fantasy. When trust and the vows are broken, so is the unity. You are just arguing for a different kind of no-fault. The modern kind says you can leave for any reason without sanction and yours says you can mistreat or betray your spouse without sanction. I don't think marriage was ever seen that way in the West.

You can't have it both ways. If you want people to see their marital commitments as sacred and to put sacrifice and duty over personal satisfaction, then you are asking them to invest their emotional and spiritual essence in it. No one but a saint will or even can do that unilaterally. You are going to have to find a way to protect those who are threatened financially, emotionally or spiritually by those who betray them. Telling them they don't count is brutal and also futile.

As a practical matter, why bother keeping your vows and aren't you worried about increasing the murder rate?

OJ:

Out one side of your mouth, you tout God-given human nature. Yet here, out the other side of your mouth, you completely drain human nature from marriage.

The responsibility of marriage is mutual. If one party fails to live up that responsibility, then to what is the other party tied?

Jeff:

Society and their children. It's not about you.

Congratulations, you have handed all power to the offender, and made the victim a doormat.

Its not about you

What in this thread gives that comment even the tiniest bit of relevance?

The offender has no power--he surrendered it when he entered into the institution. It is society that will determine when he gets it back.

Sure he (typically) does.

Gamble, drink, physically or emotionally abuse, cheat with impunity.

You have given the offender absolute impunity to act as he might in the marriage, since, by your standards, she can't do a darn thing about it.

Sure she can, she just can't get a divorce. Abuse is properly a criminal matter.