Tricky Question: Who divorced who?

[FergieTCat]

Without knowing 'the rest of the story', it is impossible to conclude that this is a case of marriage abandonment.

A married man leaving his wife to go live with another woman is not considered abandoning a marriage?

 

[bumbershoot]

My question relates to a religious issue, which I won't post here so the mods don't go crazy. I just want to know morally, who is responsible.

A friend of mine has extremely religious parents. Her husband was having an affair with his legal secretary and my friend found out. She tried and tried and tried to get the marriage back on track, but when she realized that he was even lying in *individual* counseling, and also their co-counseling sessions, she realized he just wasn't interested, and she filed.

I felt that she tried her best and that this was HIS choice to divorce.

Her extremely religious parents felt that she should have stayed no matter what. Her parents also have a myth that hers was the first divorce in their family...which is weird since two of her older sisters were divorced BEFORE my friend was divorced. So take their religious thoughts with a grain of "what's up with their mental capacity" salt.


If you look at the way Ireland used to be, without the legal possibility of divorce until the 90s, and know that it was based on their particular main religion in the country, you know that divorce was really NEVER allowed there.

My great grandmother, who moved here and married here, was deserted by her husband. They were of that main Irish religion, and her church leader would NOT give her religious permission to divorce or have an annulment. She hadn't seen her husband in years, she had no support or child support, she just had to live in limbo. She finally met a nice man and the church leader still said no, for the reason that the man was of a different religion (slightly different, to my eyes). It was at that point that she lost her temper and caused herself to no longer be a member of that church (which is why, to my friends, I'm the most Irish not-of-that-religion person they've ever known, LOL). So obviously to eyes of some higherups in that religion, even utter abandonment was not a reason for the left-alone spouse to have the marriage officially ended.

Of course, there are more liberal-minded officials of that religion.

 

[tvguy]

A married man leaving his wife to go live with another woman is not considered abandoning a marriage?

No it is not abandoning a marriage, unless he never returns. Adultry, yes, but not abandonment. I know more than one couple where one spouse moved out and live with another person, and then they got back together. They all just considered they time apart as one of lifes little speed bumps.
Heck, there are spouses on this board who have never taken a vacation together. Not sure you can put a generic definition on marriage, a marriage is an agreement between two people, and how they want to define it is up to them.

 

[NY Disney fan]

I know more than one couple where one spouse moved out and live with another person, and then they got back together. They all just considered they time apart as one of lifes little speed bumps.

And that is precisely why I started this thread. I often wonder, if I should have stuck around to see what would have happened. That's why I wanted to know who bears the ultimate responsibility for the divorce.

 

[fraggle551]

Morally, he's the pig who chose his selfish fleeting want over his family and children. You choose to be a selfish a**, you deal with the consequences of your actions.

 

[bicker]

However, often (and perhaps most of the time), the person who committed the most transgressive actions doesn't actually deal with the consequence of those actions any more than the other person. AAMoF, arguably it is that "other" person who deals with the consequences of those actions more than the greater transgressor.

 

[Jennasis]

I left my ex-husband. I filed for divorce.

When I married DH, the minister who presided over our wedding "counseled" us, as he was having a difficult time reconciling performing a wedding for a divorced woman (me). After I explained the circumstances surrounding why I left and filed for divorce, the minister granted us the marriage and explained that the divorce (the breaking of the marriage contract) was 100% my ex's fault and that I could probably have my first marriage annulled if I wanted to.

 

[FergieTCat]

No it is not abandoning a marriage, unless he never returns. Adultry, yes, but not abandonment. I know more than one couple where one spouse moved out and live with another person, and then they got back together. They all just considered they time apart as one of lifes little speed bumps.
Heck, there are spouses on this board who have never taken a vacation together. Not sure you can put a generic definition on marriage, a marriage is an agreement between two people, and how they want to define it is up to them.

Call me old fashioned, but if my husband left home to go live with another woman, I'd probably change the locks.

But I'll agree that every marriage is unique.

 

[tvguy]

And that is precisely why I started this thread. I often wonder, if I should have stuck around to see what would have happened. That's why I wanted to know who bears the ultimate responsibility for the divorce.

Well in my opinion, the person who bears the ultimately responsibility for a divorce is the person who wants out of the marriage.
The reason for wanting out of a marriage is not a factor to me if that makes sense.
Certainly your religious views can play a role. But from a purely legal standpoint....since most (if not all) states offer no-fault divorces......the law doesn't set a standard , nor does the law care, who is responsible.

 

[zippitydoo]

The man. The moment he left to be with another woman he ended the marriage

 

[blanq]

I look at this from a simple legal perspective: the person who files for the dissolution (i.e., is the Petitioner in the divorce proceedings) is the person doing the divorcing, and the other party (i.e., the Respondent) is the one being divorced.

 

[blanq]

Having seen so many replies asserting that there is a specific fault to be assessed, I'm disappointed to have seen nothing posted in this thread that shows that doing so serves a constructive end. AFAIC, it achieves nothing. It only serves to foster conflict, and as a foundation for corruption of purpose. For folks expressing a perspective that there one side or the other is at fault, please outline the benefits of allocating fault. How is either partner or the children assisted by that determination and allocation? What value does such allocation afford society?

Bicker....seriously?!!!

 

[bicker]

Answer the questions, or avoid them. Your choice.

Don't flame-bait by asking if they're serious questions. Of course they are.

 

[Jennasis]

Answer the questions, or avoid them. Your choice.

Don't flame-bait by asking if they're serious questions. Of course they are.

Well, in my case, as I pointed out upthread, without assigning "fault" to my ex, the minister would have refused to perform my wedding. I honestly had no idea the minister had such a reservation about performing our wedding. When we sat down with him, he started asking me about my first marriage. When I explained what went down, he was so relieved. He then explained that he was prepared to NOT perform our wedding due to my previous divorce but after hearing about the circumstances of it, he was confident that "fault" lay with my ex and that the church would have granted me an anullment had I pursued one.

So in this case, it was necessary to assign fault/blame. Had the minister found it to be my fault we would've gone to the JoP for the wedding I guess.

 

[ZPT1022]

Well in my opinion, the person who bears the ultimately responsibility for a divorce is the person who wants out of the marriage.
The reason for wanting out of a marriage is not a factor to me if that makes sense.
Certainly your religious views can play a role. But from a purely legal standpoint....since most (if not all) states offer no-fault divorces......the law doesn't set a standard , nor does the law care, who is responsible.

so if your significant other moved out and started a relationship with someone else, it would be your fault if you were the one who officially called it quits? You really think the cheater bears no responsibility for the relationship ending? Wow

 

[blanq]

Answer the questions, or avoid them. Your choice.

Don't flame-bait by asking if they're serious questions. Of course they are.

Oh Bicker, I was not trying to flame-bait you; I really was trying to find out if you were being serious or not. I often love your posts because I think you can be so darn funny and I truly love that part of you here on the DIS. But, as you know, so many things are lost in translation when one just has the written word (and not the tone or non-verbals to go with it). No hard feelings, I hope.

 

[Magic Mom]

Having seen so many replies asserting that there is a specific fault to be assessed, I'm disappointed to have seen nothing posted in this thread that shows that doing so serves a constructive end. AFAIC, it achieves nothing. It only serves to foster conflict, and as a foundation for corruption of purpose. For folks expressing a perspective that there one side or the other is at fault, please outline the benefits of allocating fault. How is either partner or the children assisted by that determination and allocation? What value does such allocation afford society?

In non-Bicker speak...."What difference does it make? How does it benefit anyone to place blame."

 

[smb6]

Morally- he is.
Biblically- he is.
Financially- he is. (atleast in many cases that I have seen first hand)

Technically- she is.

 

[bicker]

Well, in my case, as I pointed out upthread, without assigning "fault" to my ex, the minister would have refused to perform my wedding.

The things we do to make our ministers happy. Oy! If the problem ever presents itself again, I can point you toward some ministers who aren't so persnickety!

Oh Bicker, I was not trying to flame-bait you; I really was trying to find out if you were being serious or not.

The question of what constructive purpose there is is very serious, indeed. No problem.

In non-Bicker speak...."What difference does it make? How does it benefit anyone to place blame."

Though folks could interpret those questions as having the logical (to them) answer, "Because it makes me happy to." My second question was, however, (deliberately) more specific: What value does such allocation of blame afford society? That's critical. The issue itself generally just creates a quagmire for the person who is the arguably "wronged" party, while the transgressor is generally unaffected. As is often the case, there is no good reason to allocate of blame where blame is simply pointless.

 

[Jennasis]

The things we do to make our ministers happy. Oy! If the problem ever presents itself again, I can point you toward some ministers who aren't so persnickety!

The question of what constructive purpose there is is very serious, indeed. No problem.

Though folks could interpret those questions as having the logical (to them) answer, "Because it makes me happy to." My second question was, however, (deliberately) more specific: What value does such allocation of blame afford society? That's critical. The issue itself generally just creates a quagmire for the person who is the arguably "wronged" party, while the transgressor is generally unaffected. As is often the case, there is no good reason to allocate of blame where blame is simply pointless.

I sure hope I don't have to go through it again. The minister was DH's boss (and a really nice guy), but if he had said NO, I'd have hunted down a less persnickety one myself!