Married couples living separately

[FlightlessDuck]

Look, I get when one spouse is deployed or gets transferred by his/her company and the spouses live apart temporarily, but if this is permanent, I don't know how you can call that a "marriage".

You aren't sharing your lives together. You are living in two different places and occasionally see each other, like a dating couple.

This situation might work for some people. I'm not knocking the lifestyle. I just don't see how the word marriage can be applied to that relationship.

 

[Disney Doll]

So, let me understand this.

A couple decides to take a break. One of them moves to a place a few blocks away. According to you, they're now just pretending to be married. When did the divorce occur? They're not married any more? Because YOU don't consider them to be married now-never mind what THEY and and rest of the world thinks?

And if they choose not to divorce? Perhaps get back together? Since they were only "pretending" to be married while they were apart, should they remarry now?

THEY consider themselves to be married, but no, it's what YOU think, that matters, and YOU think they're pretending? Everyone's relationship is defined by what YOU believe?

How about the opposite: a couple that lives together, and never marries? Are they just pretending to live together, but are really married?

No everyone's relationship is not defined by what I believe. My opinion of everyone's relationship is defined by what I believe.

And my opinion is that if someone is going to be married and live 2 blocks away from their spouse because they don't want to live in the same house, then I don't consider that to be a full marriage.

If a couple is married but separated, then they are working on their marriage but realistically, during that time period of separation, in my opinion, they do not really have a full marriage either. They have a marriage that is in trouble that they are working on. If they get it fixed and move back into the same home, then voila! A nice full marriage again.

My opinion does not extend to those who have to live apart due to military deployment, work-related difficulties or any other difficulty where the married couple would like to be living in the same home but can't for a period of time (ie-perhaps caring for a sick relative or something along those lines). My opinion is about married couples who could live together but choose not to.

Your question about couples living together makes no sense. They are not legally married. They are living together in the same home and have an emotional attachment. If they decide to live in separate homes, they would no longer be living together, they'd be dating (or maybe not... maybe living in separate homes means they broke up as a couple). No marriage ever took place in their relationship so no marriage exists to live apart within, by choice or otherwise.

 

[Colleen27]

I totally agree with this. There has to be some way to define marriage, other than the "one man, one woman" ridiculousness that appears to be the only thing our society is concerned with these days. Let anyone get married who wants to. However, in order to reap the tax benefits, insurance benefits, social assistance programs benefits, etc, there should be a very cut and dry "you must live together under the same roof for the MAJORITY of the time" rule in place. No if's, and's or but's about it. If you can't stand to live together, and live in separate homes, what makes you "married?" If people have to live apart for work, military, or other considerations, they should have to file proof of that every year in order to keep claiming they are "married."

Why does there have to be a way to define it in regard to living arrangements? Those DUI laws exist to protect the rest of us on the roads. What does defining a "right way" to conduct a marriage protect against? What risk does a married couple living apart pose to you or to me?

 

[NotUrsula]

Why are you getting so personal? I posted my opinion on a forum. I never said I had a definition of true love but I know true love isn't living in separate houses because you can't stand your spouse's quirks but don't want to go through the financial burden of a divorce. Is that true love to you? Is that what we tell our kids to go out and find? And yes, I find it a slap in the face to make a mockery of marriage by living separately because divorce is too scary and the thought of becoming one of those "statistics" is too overwhelming. Between that and the celebrity marriages, traditions are out the window. There is no sanctity anymore, it's just the cool thing to do until you grow tired of it. And yes that bothers me because I am one that does respect marriage and what it stands for. I don't treat it as a social status or some chic lifestyle to fit in. And I won't even get into the fraud that this could lead too between government benefits and health insurance costs which affect EVERYONE.

Again, with all due respect, have you really examined the history of the institution of marriage in the Western world at all?

The reasons for marriage that you are claiming are "traditional" simply are not. Before the late 19th century, the idea of getting married specifically and ONLY because you were in love was almost laughable, and any parent who cared would have told a child that it was a very foolish and irresponsible thing to do.

Marriage is first and foremost an institution created for the orderly transfer of real property, as in the days before DNA testing, it was the only way to create a legally-binding chain of descent. For that reason, throughout history, marriage has been a contractual construct, and like any contract, it is not enforceable without proper consideration. This is a big reason why marriage has never been as important among the very poor as it is for the middle class -- there is very little benefit in it for the very, very poor, as they don't have property to protect.

Marriages of any kind will be satisfying if they meet your expectations. The key is not expecting what your partner is unwilling or unable to provide. Liberalization of divorce law notwithstanding, the so-called sanctity of marriage isn't deteriorating because people don't love one another the way they used to -- it is actually the converse. They don't stay married because popular culture has conned them into believing that the only reason to be married is "true love", and they have come to believe that a marriage that doesn't have it has no worth.

 

[NYDisGuy]

Again, with all due respect, have you really examined the history of the institution of marriage in the Western world at all?

The reasons for marriage that you are claiming are "traditional" simply are not. Before the late 19th century, the idea of getting married specifically and ONLY because you were in love was almost laughable, and any parent who cared would have told a child that it was a very foolish and irresponsible thing to do.

Marriage is first and foremost an institution created for the orderly transfer of real property, as in the days before DNA testing, it was the only way to create a legally-binding chain of descent. For that reason, throughout history, marriage has been a contractual construct, and like any contract, it is not enforceable without proper consideration. This is a big reason why marriage has never been as important among the very poor as it is for the middle class -- there is very little benefit in it for the very, very poor, as they don't have property to protect.

Marriages of any kind will be satisfying if they meet your expectations. The key is not expecting what your partner is unwilling or unable to provide. Liberalization of divorce law notwithstanding, the so-called sanctity of marriage isn't deteriorating because people don't love one another the way they used to -- it is actually the converse. They don't stay married because popular culture has conned them into believing that the only reason to be married is "true love", and they have come to believe that a marriage that doesn't have it has no worth.

Wait, you said western world then skipped to the 19th century. Did you want to discuss how Native Americans would marry to strengthen their family and it would bring shame and dishonor, even sometimes death on a man or woman to cheat or divorce from a spouse.

Or what about the fact that in the 18th and 19th century, a wife was EXPECTED to clean, cook and take care of the kids in THEIR home while the husband was providing the resources for the family. They didn't live two separate lives and occasionally hung out on the weekends because they had to work together to raise a family. Do you really think love wasn't involved in any of this?

The traditions i'm talking about are the basic ones that have survived the evolution of marriage like loyalty, honesty, love and being faithful. Are you seriously telling me that you can sacrifice one of those and have a great marriage? Or living in two separate homes because you can't stand living with your spouse but want to occasionally hang out to prevent divorce, that's a healthy marriage?

And no, popular culture defines marriage as Kim Kardashian or Jessica Simpson or Brittany Spears or anyone else that does it as a PR move or a relationship out of lust. And now they add another chic lifestyle by making it ok to live in separate homes if things get too rough. That's popular culture's version of marriage and that's what I've been talking to in my posts.

 

[mrsklamc]

And yes, I find it a slap in the face to make a mockery of marriage by living separately because divorce is too scary and the thought of becoming one of those "statistics" is too overwhelming.

I think the frequency of divorce makes more of a mockery of marriage than living in separate houses.

Now before anyone tells me why their divorce was absolutely necessary- I believe you, I'm not talking about anyone's specific divorce- just that overall, it happens far more that it should, and that should be way more troubling to married people than other couples' living arrangements.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

The divorce rate isn't as bad as you think it is. The problem is how researchers deal with the data they have...

http://psychcentral.com/lib/2012/the-myth-of-the-high-rate-of-divorce/all/1/

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/divorce.htm

http://www.womansday.com/sex-relationships/dating-marriage/divorce-facts

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...bunked_n_804934.html#s219156title=Half_of_All

 

[moon]

Wait, you said western world then skipped to the 19th century. Did you want to discuss how Native Americans would marry to strengthen their family and it would bring shame and dishonor, even sometimes death on a man or woman to cheat or divorce from a spouse.

Or what about the fact that in the 18th and 19th century, a wife was EXPECTED to clean, cook and take care of the kids in THEIR home while the husband was providing the resources for the family. They didn't live two separate lives and occasionally hung out on the weekends because they had to work together to raise a family. Do you really think love wasn't involved in any of this?

But the truth is that often love wasn't innvolved in it. Marriage was arranged by the parents and the woman (usually a very young woman) was treated as property, transferd to one man (father) to another. "love" had very little to do with it.

 

[mrsklamc]

I wasn't referring to the 50% statistic. I can look around and see too many couples that got divorced over petty stuff.

Or the fact that you can get divorced for 'irreconcilable differences' when you haven't been married long enough to have really tried.

 

[mrsklamc]

But the truth is that often love wasn't innvolved in it. Marriage was arranged by the parents and the woman (usually a very young woman) was treated as property, transferd to one man (father) to another. "love" had very little to do with it.

Love often grew out of it though- and that's another problem with our society's view of love ~ it's not just the happy feeling you get when you "fall in love." It's the actions you take when you don't feel all lovely dovey.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Certainly an odd arrangement, but sometimes you work it out. Now if I don't have to clean up after dh then I might have to look into this.

 

[beaucoup]

While DH was deployed to Afghanistan for a year, I sort of liked having the place to myself. It was a nice break after 23 yrs of marriage at the time. Only me and my mess to take care of. Sure I missed him and worried about him, but I didn't mind being alone as much as newer brides make it sound like all the do is cry and lie in bed for a whole year. I had plenty of time with friends and my interests for a change.

I did miss having someone around to help when I needed a hand. But friends helped with that.

Had a bigger adjustment I think with the version of DH that came home. Been over a year and still working on that. It's not like it was before he left.

So, yes, I think we could live apart. I mean really, how much is he really here anyway. I have been alone for a lot of our 25 yrs of marriage.

 

[TavieP]

Interesting thread, lots of strong opinions. I personally feel that marriage is what a couple decides is best for them and that is THEIR definition of marriage, no matter how it makes other people feel.

My aunt got divorced about 10 years ago and moved into a nice studio apartment in Brooklyn. About 2 years ago someone from her office who had recently retired and moved to Wisconsin called her up and confessed his love for her. She eventually decided to "give it a try" and he moved back to NY and they began dating. He soon bought another studio apartment in the same building. She is not interested in getting married again (having been burned once!) but they live happily sharing their lives but maintaining separate, but close, apartments. We call him "Uncle Judge" (he's a retired judge) even though he's not really our uncle. It's nice. It's not marriage, but it works for them.

Just wanted to share.

 

[beaucoup]

Interesting thread, lots of strong opinions. I personally feel that marriage is what a couple decides is best for them and that is THEIR definition of marriage, no matter how it makes other people feel.

My aunt got divorced about 10 years ago and moved into a nice studio apartment in Brooklyn. About 2 years ago someone from her office who had recently retired and moved to Wisconsin called her up and confessed his love for her. She eventually decided to "give it a try" and he moved back to NY and they began dating. He soon bought another studio apartment in the same building. She is not interested in getting married again (having been burned once!) but they live happily sharing their lives but maintaining separate, but close, apartments. We call him "Uncle Judge" (he's a retired judge) even though he's not really our uncle. It's nice. It's not marriage, but it works for them.

Just wanted to share.

My aunt became widowed. Eventually met & married another guy. Kept her house though "just in case". Yup, things didn't work out & she had her old house to go back to, not that I think she ever really moved in with him.

My MIL (in her 70's) was divorced. Had a long time love. Spent most time at his house but kept her condo. She didn't want to get married. She wanted to keep getting alimony from jerk ex-husband. Love passed away. His kids got the house. She still had her condo to go back to. This was in FL. Just like the original article from beginning of thread.

I can see this for older or remarried people. You just never know & sometimes you need to protect yourself. For both of those ladies, it was a very smart move to have kept their old homes or they could have had nothing after.

 

[DLgal]

My aunt got divorced about 10 years ago and moved into a nice studio apartment in Brooklyn. About 2 years ago someone from her office who had recently retired and moved to Wisconsin called her up and confessed his love for her. She eventually decided to "give it a try" and he moved back to NY and they began dating. He soon bought another studio apartment in the same building. She is not interested in getting married again (having been burned once!) but they live happily sharing their lives but maintaining separate, but close, apartments. We call him "Uncle Judge" (he's a retired judge) even though he's not really our uncle. It's nice. It's not marriage, but it works for them.

Ding. Ding. Ding. Your last sentence sums up this whole discussion.

It's. Not. Marriage.

 

[NaLisa]

Ding. Ding. Ding. Your last sentence sums up this whole discussion.

It's. Not. Marriage.

But for the people in the original article...It. Is. Marriage. The state says so, the employers say so, the IRS says so, insurance say so, courts say so, hospital says so, etc.

It's just you and a few other people who say those aren't "real marriages."

 

[EMAW_KSU]

Ding. Ding. Ding. Your last sentence sums up this whole discussion.

It's. Not. Marriage.

Because they are not married.

 

[TomorrowlandFamily]

I feel like that is not a real marriage. To me, marriage is about two people joining together as one. Unity. Commitment. Sharing life. That can't really happen if you live apart voluntarily. That is called dating.

I agree. IMO it's only a marriage on paper.

 

[themilesfamily]

My DH and I sleep in separate bedrooms. And I LOVE it because we both sleep so much better that way and I like my space. But I would hate for him to live in a different house. 1) I would be lonely. 2) Who would protect me if a burglar broke in during the night? I feel so much safer with him in the house.

As for what other people choose to do -- I have no judgement, whatsoever. If that's what works for them, cool!

 

[DisneyDiva8401]

If you like solitude, independence, yada yada yada, then why get married, which is specifically the joining of two people? Wouldn't a committed dating relationship be a better fit for their lifestyles? Is marriage nothing more than a piece of paper to them? Not to mention how trusting you would have to be knowing your hubby could possibly NOT be alone at night, ya know what I mean?