I was married for 11 years. My marriage ended when my husband died.
A friend of a friend was married for 32 years. Their marriage ended when her husband left her for another woman.
But up to and through 11 years, their relationship would have looked “successful.” And there’s nothing that proves that if my husband had lived we wouldn’t have gotten a divorce.
So, what’s the definition of a successful marriage? Is it only identifiable after it’s over, and only “successful” if someone died (as a necessary but not sufficient condition)?
I made no promise about ‘as long as we both shall live.’ Do bear in mind that not everybody (even in the US) marries with a Christian ceremony.
That said, I think that a successful marriage is one that continues to makes the people in it happy, and doesn’t make the people around them less happy. That generally means that neither party wants out.
Shodan, do you mean to say that any marriage which ends only in one party’s natural death, or death at the hand of a third party, may be considered successful?
I added those qualifications because I am not trying to imply that you would call a marriage that ended with one party killing the other successful.
It might not be in the vows, but shouldn’t a lifelong commitment be implied? Why entwine your life – your emotional well-being, children, pets, finances, friends, family, property – with someone you’re not fully committed to?
But I suppose a “successful” marriage can include an amicable divorce, with minimal upheaval to the kids, and both parties left with the ability to care for themselves, financially, physically, emotionally. I don’t know of any divorces like that, but there are probably quite a few. (My friends tend to do things the hard way.)
Dio, the last two marriage ceremonies I attended did not include that phrasing; in both cases, the parties involved wrote their own vows. I can’t quote exactly what they did say, because I don’t walk around with a tape recorder.
Does this question really need to be asked? If one partner murders the other, then that partner is breaking his/her vow to “love, honor and cherish” the other person.
I can conceive of situations where one partner could kill the other and I would still say the marriage was successful, though.
That is complete and utter bullshit. Why should a pair of women–one an outright atheist, the other a Buddhist-Christian mix–be obliged to parrot the traditional wedding vows? Why should an atheist heterosexual couple? Why should people swear anything they do not entirely agree with? How better to make sure they entirely agree with their vows than to write their own?
Regards,
That Dude Who Hates Rhetorical Questions, but Sometimes Makes Statements by Implication in the way he signs off his posts
I never said they should. But if they aren’t promising to be together forever, they aren’t getting married. If there’s any meaningful definition of marriage, it’s lifelong commitment. If there’s no commitment, then what the fuck are they wasting everybody’s time for?
Oh, and the reason I say people shouldn’t write their own vows is purely for aesthetic reasons. They’re generally excruciating to listen to. Complete ear garbage.
Perhaps they recognize that persons change over time. That the people they are today are not the people they will necessarily be twenty years hence. Perhaps they don’t wish to make a promise they are not sure they can keep.
