Faith In Marriage

The other day while nursing my baby I happened upon a rerun of the old show "Mad About You." It was a depressing episode where Paul and Jamie are on the verge of breaking up their marriage. Each feels that he is doing the best he can and yet neither of them is happy. Jamie (Helen Hunt’s character) says, "I told you so when we first met that I didn’t think that marriage between two people could last indefinitely" (I am paraphrasing). Their discussion, which includes the painful issue of her not being able to conceive, reveals that deep-down she is afraid that he will leave her. And then, because neither of them is happy at that time, they decide to split (though at the end of the episode they end up staying together).

Just as they are about to go their separate ways, my three-year-old son toddled in and asked me, "Mommy, is this 'Pride and Prejudice'?" It may seem like an odd question except for the fact that for the past few weeks my two girls and I have been watching a little bit of the six-hour A&E version before taking our afternoon tea (a pretentious yet extremely gratifying habit we’ve started this year). So his question made me reflect a bit on the striking differences between the two models of marriage. There are two things that I’d like to consider.

The first is the willingness of each couple to change and cultivate themselves for the sake of the marriage. The entire point of P&P is that both characters need to overcome their imperfections (pride and prejudice) in order to become suitable spouses. Contrarily, in "Mad About You" (and forgive me for using this one episode as symptomatic of the whole, but I never really watched the show when it was running) neither is willing to change. In fact, both claim that "this is the best I can do," and since this is the best, obviously the marriage isn’t going to work.

While I think it is unwise to go into marriage thinking you can change the other person, I do think that one should view it as an opportunity to grow in virtue and move towards perfection (in virtue, that is). Marriage is hard, no doubt, but if you just stick your feet in the mud and refuse to overcome your shortcomings, then your marriage is sunk for sure.

The second thing that occurred to me was how easily the "Mad About You" couple was willing to give up on the marriage. As Catholics, my husband and I consider marriage to be indissoluble this side of the grave, and while many have criticized this belief for leading to abuse without recourse (no doubt true in an extremely small number of cases), I think this setup gives marriage more of a fighting chance.  By not having divorce on the table, my husband and I have an excellent incentive for making this work and growing through the problems without contemplating finding a new spouse.  However, NOT getting divorced does not mean that our marriage is taken for granted because there is always the possibility that we could separate and live apart.  So both elements --treating the marriage carefully because it is fragile and yet not worrying at every step one is considering trading in the other for a newer model -- helps us to take our marriage vows seriously and live in the peace that these vows offer.

With these thoughts in mind, I read an article in Glamour about Faith Hill, where she says, "We have disagreements, but we got married to stay married. If you didn’t want to walk the same path or believe the same things, it could be difficult, but if you have the same goals you can get through bumpy moments. It’s remarkable to have someone walk beside you as you grow and change; it would be nice to see [marriage] that way instead of it being a major challenge."

I think that sums it up nicely.

Comments

[Liz Neville]

In defense of Paul and Jamie (who I truly think of as real people, having been a big fan of the show) their commitment to each other was a little stronger than revealed by the episode you saw, which I remember as very poignant. But you are right to notice the difference in their attitude toward marriage-- they were the quintessential yuppie couple, after all. And even I admit that these endearing two did get a little tiresome in their constant self-questioning-- "Will I be a good mother? Will I be happy being a faithful spouse?" etc, but of course that was part of the humor.

The leisure time afforded us (relatively wealthy) modern beings can be crazy-making, especially when we start to question everything. Other cultures in other times didn't have this luxury, and in many way I think they were better off.

[wendy]

Alexandra,

You are so cute that you have afternoon tea with your girls. You really crack me up.

It's little details like this that make you supremely qualified to write for this blog--the rest of us are just catching up!

[Nancy the Romancechick]

I vaguely remember that episode, but what I remember about Mad About You, and I loved that show, was that they WERE married and not living together and for the most part they were united on things. That's something that is SO important to my husband and me. The word divorce is never mentioned or even considered in a threatening way. Neither of us came from divorced homes and my mother told me flat out when she was going through a very tough time with Dad (due to an undiagnosed illness), "Marriage is forever. You don't just leave because things get hard." My husband and I are, sometimes, the only people who get where we're coming from on moral issues and we've had to stand together to fight against what the world says is okay. It is easy, in this day and age, to quit because "it isn't fun anymore," but God didn't promise fun, He promised grace and that grace is what sustains us when it's not fun. I think I'd rather have grace.

[Elin]

Nancy, you are so right - I'll take grace over "fun" any day!

In general, I agree with Alex - although I never saw "Mad about You", and P&P does not really go into details about Darcy and Elizabeth's life AFTER marriage. Still, I think you can argue that the willingness to change and see the other's point of view both characters show before marriage bodes well for their life together.

I was thinking about this a lot after a recent visit to a dear divorced friend. As we were talking about the breakdown of her marriage, I could see that she and her now ex-husband had quite a different view of marriage than my husband and I have. The difference seemed subtle when you compared specific incidents, but basically amounted to neither of them wanting to have to change their attitudes, habits, etc. for the sake of the relationship. I stopped wondering why they'd broken up and wondered instead how they'd lasted as long as they had!

It's hard to write about this without sounding like a "smug married" - I haven't been in my friend's shoes, and although my marriage has had to cope with some serious challenges, I have been blessed with a husband who was willing to work on those challenges with me. It might have been quite a different story if he hadn't.

Still, I think Alex has raised an important point: marriage demands that both parties be willing to be changed in the process. This is not easy for anyone, but perhaps hard for us to hear in a culture that so values individualism and an individual idea of self-fulfillment?

[Sunnyday]

Hearing about so many cases of spouses separating, of the divorce rate skyrocketing, of men being incapable of fidelity, or of life-long commitment in marriage being impossible, and seeing instances of these dramatized on TV and film, somehow puts cracks on the wall of one's conviction about love and marriage. On the other hand, listening to people talk the way Alexandra and the other commenters stress the need for the willingness to change and adjust, the way many people get married to stay married, and other things along this line, affirm the conviction that marriage is meant to last a lifetime and that the sacrifices are well worth it. I'm one of those people who have this view, though I'm not yet married, and reading Alexandra's post and the comments that followed strengthen my conviction even more! So thanks!

Thought you might like to read something related to this at "Ladies against Feminism" titled "Is This What Women Want?" An excerpt:

-------------------------------------------
The author of that topic (a young woman, by the way), started with a description of what, in her opinion, was a typical housewife: a tired, ill-dressed, frustrated, uninteresting woman. Having children, she argued, doesn't leave enough free time so that a woman can take proper care of herself--and that includes daily visits to beauty salons, restaurants, and shopping centers (without which, of course, no happiness can exist!). Later, she referred to the well-known TV series "Sex and the City" as her ideal of a carefree, liberated lifestyle that suits a modern woman.

I wasn't planning to enter the discussion at all, because that woman's post seemed so radical, so primitive and shallow, and I thought, Why waste my breath? What stopped me from walking away was, sadly, the tremendous amount of positive feedback she received from other surfers ("Bravo!", "Every word is truth," "I just got a divorce and I'm so happy"). The last straw was a comment that said: "A woman should get married while she's young, have a baby, give the baby to her parents or in-laws, develop a career while being supported by her husband, and when he runs out of finances, divorce him. Then she can meet other men, enjoy life, and sometimes spend a vacation with her child. This way, a woman has EVERYTHING!" The forum exploded with cheers.
-------------------------------------------

The writer decides to reply to the forum post, but I'll leave that for you to read on the website itself. It's at http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/article_2458.shtml

Thanks for the inspiration. I know I get a dose of it everytime I drop by here. =)

[Elin]

P.S: I just checked out the Glamour interview with Faith Hill (thanks for the link!) I love her statement: "There's nothing wrong with being a good girl - it's actually very attractive and sexy."

Amen!