M E R I D I A N     M A G A Z I N E

Defining Marriage
By Susan Law Corpany

I have a son getting married this month, so marriage has been on my mind.  I had the nightmare last night about all the things that could go wrong at the wedding. 

As stepmother of the groom, I thought those dreams would be the territory of the bride’s mother.  Maybe hers are worse than mine, but I don’t know how she could beat the $3,000.00 wedding cake (and they gave us the bill) with domino-effect actions starting with the bride and groom on top of the cake falling, Mouse Trap style, and setting off a chain reaction moving between different layers of the multi-tiered cake ending in another bride and groom shooting down a miniature water slide powered by moving chocolate, which then became a chocolate fountain. 

(The bride and groom were also followed by ten or so naked plastic babies, something the baker said he did for all his Mormon clients.)  There is more but I’ll stop now, because this is just the lead-in to what my column is really about — marriage and the sanctity thereof.  Really. 

In browsing a magazine left behind at our rental home — in other words, not one I usually buy — I ran across this question written to an advice columnist:

“Is a man who is separated from his wife fair game?”

The answer included many important points about whether he was emotionally available, about whether he was looking for a new relationship out of fear of being alone, about whether or not it was a “test separation” and he might still be hoping to reunite with his wife. 

Nothing was said about the fact that he is, technically, still married.  I suppose it would be hopelessly old-fashioned to suggest that might mean something in this enlightened age.  Even if a couple has given up on their marriage, the institution of marriage still deserves respect.  I doubt that any advice columnist will say anything like unto that any time soon.  “No, he is not fair game.  He is a married man.”  Period.  End of story.   

The definition of marriage has been a hot issue in recent times with many Church members expending time, energy and resources in order for marriage to remain an institution between one man and one woman.  While we are defining marriage in the societal sense, we also need to make very clear, especially to our children, how we define marriage individually.

Divorce happens, even sometimes to active members of the Church.  Having been in the singles program as an adult more than I would have preferred, I have seen up close and personal some confusion on the issue of when a marriage is over.  If your marriage ends, you still send a strong message to your children, and others who may be watching you, about how you feel about the institution of marriage.

“Separation” usually means no longer living together, often in preparation for a divorce.  There is often an initial dividing up of worldly goods.  He takes the truck.  She keeps the car.  The world basically sees this as a time period in which the individuals involved are then free to explore other relationships, as if emotionally and physically distancing oneself from a spouse makes one free of the marital vows. 

Granted, this may be a moot issue for those who have already abandoned their morals, but I have seen many almost-single members of the Church who do not fall into that category treating “separation” as if they were indeed single again and free to look and/or establish new relationships. 

Where is My Ten-Foot Pole?

When I was still single, I chatted online with a former member of a stake presidency.  He referred once to a woman he had dated while he was separated from his wife.  He was deleted from my buddy list very quickly.   

It never fails to surprise me to find members of the Church who subscribe to this worldly theory that we can simply “drop out” of our marriages and look around if a divorce is on the horizon.  At the singles dances sponsored by the Church, there is a sign that states: “All divorces must be final.”  You would think that would be a no-brainer, but apparently this is not clear to some people.

In the news regularly lately there have been stories about high mortgage foreclosure rates.  I suppose the same logic many apply to their marriages could be applied to those who find themselves in over their heads with their mortgages.  Just move out of the house and you are no longer liable for the payments.  Release yourself by moving on. 

We recognize that is not the case, that we made a commitment and that we are liable for payments until we sell the house.  What’s the difference?

Boundaries 

The world would convince us that this blurring of boundaries is not a bad thing.  Much counsel is often given about our moral choices regarding boundaries as we lead up to marriage, but not so much is said about the boundaries for those who are ending one.

No matter how you slice it, “separated” reads “still married.”  Besides, when a marriage is ending, the last thing you should be doing is looking for a new relationship when you haven’t even come to terms with what went wrong in the old one. 

When I told my now-husband Thom about the guy who dated while he was separated, he said, “That would be like me saying, ‘The woman I dated while my wife was dying in the hospital.’”  (Let the record show he said this sarcastically, lest there should be any who think that is true.)  I guess you can tell which one I thought was a “keeper.” 

You might argue that there is a big difference, but having experienced both, a dying spouse as well as a dying marriage deserve some grieving time.  It is an affront to the institution of marriage to leave it too readily, but it can also show disrespect to enter into it inadvisably or too quickly after the end of a previous relationship or too quickly period.

I was sealed in the temple at 25, widowed at 26, remarried at 31, divorced at 40 and I am married once again at 45.  After my marriage ended, I lived in fear of being asked to teach a lesson on marriage to the Young Women.  When this occurred, however, instead of bowing out, I realized that I could still speak positively about the institution of marriage and could still testify about the eternal nature of marriage as part of God’s plan.

Despite the personal failure of a couple, I could and should teach the lesson and bear testimony of marriage. 

We have latter-day revelation and have been told in A Proclamation to the World that “the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.” 

It may seem to be a contradiction, but even those who have experienced the disintegration of a family can exhibit moral clarity.  They can stand for correct principles and do what they can to be a good example of eternal principles and strengthen the institution of marriage and the family.

As the saying goes, “Those who are convinced that marriage is a failure are often those who have tried it the most.”  Speaking as one who has been married as many times as Scarlett O’Hara, not always.

Return to Top of Article