Married couples living separately

[LongLiveDisney]

It's not a real marriage to me at all. Doesn't make any sense to live separately...

 

[TavieP]

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."

Yes, exactly. The example of my aunt & her boyfriend is decidedly NOT marriage, as opposed to the other examples in this thread, where MARRIED couples choose to live apart. That's still MARRIAGE. Your (meaning the person who said "It's. Not. Marriage") not liking how they choose to live doesn't make it any less marriage.

 

[TavieP]

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?

There are tax incentives. Shared health insurance. I can see lots of reasons why people would want to get married and not live together. Perhaps marriage IS nothing more than a piece of paper to them.

It wouldn't work for me, personally, but I can see how it would work for others.

I guess my question with this thread is - how does something that *doesn't work for you but work for others* threaten you guys so much? How does it hurt you? What's it to you?

 

[NotUrsula]

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.

Western world and 19th century are not mutually exclusive. I'm speaking of the legal aspects, and in almost all of the US (Louisiana being the exception), that is the tradition of English Common Law. However, even in the Code Civil, marriage is still a property arrangement. I'm afraid that there is no current legal system outside of tribal territories that is based on Native American tradition, so it really isn't germaine to what a "traditional" marriage is, in legal history terms.

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.

Um, not necessarily. That depended very largely upon socio-economic class. In that era, domestic service was much more common; if you could afford help you hired it, because all of that cooking, cleaning, etc. was backbreaking manual labor, and a "good" provider would want to show that he had the resources to relieve his wife of that labor.

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?

Well, there is love, and there is contractual duty -- the consideration that I spoke of earlier. Believe me, people stay married for a long, long time for a whole lot of reasons that are not necessarily about love, though as a general rule, fondness will often develop over time when you live with someone. Fondness is a lot more normal than passion, however.

I'm a first-generation American, and just about every marriage that I am familiar with in my extended family prior to my generation was NOT a case of getting married because they loved one another -- and this in a country where divorce was not legalized until 1997!

My parents were fond of one another in their way, and they were married for 35 years (until my father's death). They also fought like cats and dogs every day of their married lives. They got married because my father wanted a good homemaker, and my mother wanted security and an escape from the second-class citizenship of 1930's spinsterhood. They were both very religious, and they took promises made before God very seriously -- they said until death do us part, and as far as they were concerned, that was non-negotiable. My paternal grandfather abandoned my grandmother with 8 children to raise, yet they remained married for another 30 years, and neither one ever said a bad word against the other in one of their childrens' hearing.

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?

But many of those "traditions" are quite new, in legal terms. Adultery on the part of the husband wasn't legal grounds for divorce in Common Law until 1857, and there was a huge debate on the topic, because many lawmakers feared that husbands would use that as license to escape from an unwanted marriage. (In the days before reliable records, once a man was gone, he was gone; there really wasn't any way to trace someone who was not wealthy or prominant, so if he didn't want to pay any support, it was a simple matter not to.)

As to loyalty, it isn't necessarily equivalent to love. How many people are loyal to an employer because of a paycheck? Or loyal to a political party because of what positions it does NOT support? You don't have to love someone to feel that you owe that person loyalty.

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.

You can personally define marriage any way that you want, but one look at the wedding industry will show you that real popular culture (not just prurient celebrity gossip) defines marriage as being all about romantic love. To hear young brides (and Nicholas Sparks novels) tell it, it is supposed to be hearts and flowers for ever and ever. There is a huge reason that the Catholic Church requires counseling before a wedding will be performed -- in a faith that does not condone divorce, they want to be sure that you are going in with open eyes, not rose-coloured glasses. (It doesn't always work, of course, but they do try.)

Happiness and contentment in marriage is all about expectations. If both partners are completely open about their expectations and get those expectations continually met, it will be a good marriage for them. If you asked my mother if her marriage was happy, she would have told you that it was, because she got what she wanted from it.

 

[fall08CP]

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!

So you don't let him travel without you either? There are thousands of females that live alone. I'm glad I don't HAVE to rely on a man for protection, and I've lived in some of the roughest parts of town. That wouldn't be a deciding factor to me for living together, but maybe I'm more daring than most.

 

[Disney Doll]

Not Ursula's post above is very interesting from a historical perspective.

And from a historical perspective, I can see why "marriage" in and of itself may not have always been that of "love" but rather convenience, social/societal acceptance, financial security etc.

So I guess any discussion about marriage should include one's personal beliefs about marriage.

When I married, I considered it a sacrament. I married someone I love. I did not marry someone who would/could provide financial security. I could do that for myself. I did not marry someone who could provide me with "societal security" (ie-not being a spinster in the 1930s as in Ursula's example above). I was born in the 1960s, raised to be self-sufficient. I did fully realize that I was entering into a civil insituttion as well as, in our case, a religious one, but realistically, the civil thing was secondary.

My reason for marrying was because I loved my DH and couldn't imagine life without him. That being said, our goal was to build a life together, in the same home. Our goal was not to live in separate homes and "meet up" occasionally.

For those who married for reasons other than love, I would imagine that living separately isn't as much of an issue. What they do doesn't impact me, nor do I think they have what I consider to be a full marriage. My opinion...nothing more, nothing less.

 

[thewishfire]

Marriage is not defined by a living arrangement, it’s defined by commitment. I live with my boyfriend. We aren't married, but we live the same way a married couple would. We share the same bed, same living space, the same bills, etc. Does this make our relationship more ‘real’ than a couple who are legally married but live separately? No. We haven’t made that commitment yet.

‘True love’ is not determined by a piece of paper - that’s why I hate the term ‘paper marriage’. ALL marriages are paper marriages… a license doesn't change a relationship. It doesn't create love, and it doesn't change what makes you happy. A marriage license is just a contract. If living apart but being committed to each other keeps your marriage strong, happy, and healthy, who’s to say it’s wrong or any less filled with love? I’d rather live apart and be happy, than live together and miserable like so many people are.

 

[Cindy B]

I As for the OP
I know several military families that have chosen to live apart. Instead of constantly uprooting their children, they have a home base and the military member comes to visit as often as possible.

I think everyone needs to do whatever is best for their relationship and if that includes living next door to each other then so be it.

I lived in a home base situation. My father reenlisted in the army (and then later Air Force) when I was in 5th grade. He would go away for training, tours and such and go from there. When I was in high school, he was not home much at all. I'm glad we stayed home-- we kept our schools, and stable living situation when my dad was in TX, LA, and other places.

 

[PaulaSue]

A woman I work with does something similar. She lives in a travel trailer on their property. He is her second husband who married after knowing 3 months. Turns out he is a hoarder and a mean guy IMO too. They even have own accounts and each pay half the bills even half the gas to get to work when he worked with us. She won't consider divorce since both very religious but complains about him all the time. I don't see how she puts up with his stunts especially since her kids and Frankie's can't even come up to her home to visit.

 

[snykymom]

Robert B. Parker, who wrote the Jesse Stone and Spenser novels, lived in an apartment and his wife Joan lived in the apartment above. And they were very much "together" and married in every sense of the word.

I don't know why they did it, but it worked for them, and that's all I need to know.

 

[Disney Doll]

Well again, what someone does in their marriage doesn't impact me and if it works for them it's fine with me.

However, this is a discussion board, so we are discussing things, hearing peoples' thoughts and opinions.

Realistically, every post on here could be effectively ended with "It doesn't impact me so who cares?".