Healthy attitude to marriage vows or not?

[jessjessjess]

I'm trying to work out whether my attitude to my marriage vows is healthy or not.

My parents had a bad marriage (as in DV). My mum told me that, if you love someone, you don't give up on them. That it's easy to stick around when the going is good, but what really matters is being there when things are tough. I always thought it was a shite outlook but evidently internalised it as I spent a number of years in a similar relationship and didn't feel able to leave.

I'm now happily married to a gentle, kind man. I'm currently going through some tough times as I'm having counselling to deal with the past and a lot of old feelings are coming out. DH has been an absolute rock. I feel guilty as I am taking more than I am giving right now, so I find myself apologising - and DH's response is to say something like: "I made vows to you and I take those seriously," or "In sickness and in health, remember?" Which makes me really uncomfortable.

The way I see it, neither of us is obliged to stick around no matter what. Marriage vows are something you choose to honour, you don't just blindly follow them regardless of the other person's behaviour. I realise I'm way overreacting to DH because of my 'stuff', but I do find myself wondering if I've got it right now in thinking marriage is not simply a binding contract but an ongoing choice, if that makes any sense at all?

Sorry, I forgot to type a subject line and my phone still let me post - will see if MNHQ can fix it!

Personally, I'd take 'for better or worse' and 'in sickness and in health' out of the marriage vows entirely.
They are very misleading and must make some people feel as though they are obliged to put up with whatever shit their spouse flings at them.

Hmmm I think I get where you're coming from, but you said yourself, your DH has been an absolute rock. I don't have a problem with 'In sickness and in health', but I do have a problem with 'for better or worse', because yes, this does suggest that you have to stick together even when you don't want to. However, you're not happy with him bringing up the sickness and health bit and I'm not really sure why. He's just saying he's completely committed to you and he's there for you at an obviously tricky time.

Jessjessjess the big question is: would you stick by him through thick and thin if the tables were turned? It reads as though you wouldn't.

Basically your guilt seems to rise from that realisation. I could be way off so apologies in advance.

Call it old fashioned but I actually do believe in those vows. Yes I stuck it out through PND and a host of other issues financial, personal that resulted in that spiralling fallout my red line was the physical mis treatment of the DC's.

Pictish I think we forget the earlier parts of the vows- to honour etc because if we took them as a whole and both partners treated each other equally there would be no shit thrown at you.

If the first part is not put into practice then already the vows have no meaning - and so yes at that point the rest becomes invalid.

I think you're trying to to apply black-and-white thinking to a subject that has far too many shades of grey.

Illness is complicated. Few people actually choose to become ill and we would all like to hope that we are special enough for our partners to love us even when we're not on top form. PND and many illnesses, including non-life-limiting cancers, for example, tend to resolve in time. Where other illnesses are terminal or chronic, the effects can be minimised with some creativity, external support and will. In most cases, I would expect a marriage to weather illness if the emotional relationship is healthy, respectful and loving, and I would demand no less from my spouse.

However, it's not always that clear cut. For example, in long-term illnesses where there is an effect on someone's personality (e.g. some MH issues, alzheimer's disease, etc), the person who you loved no longer exists. Without that love, the situation simply becomes intolerable. There's no shame in quitting for those reasons IMO, just a lot of sadness.

Expecting support from your spouse should be a given in a marriage IMO. Taking freely given support is very, very different to feeling obligated to stick around while your spouse actively chooses to emotionally, verbally or physically abuse you. That said, if the support is all one way for a significant period of time and shows no sign of changing, that in itself could be considered a form of abuse. That's why it's always worth reassessing regularly - you don't want to be the person who falls into the trap of being carried any more than you want to be the person who has to do the carrying. In a healthy, respectful relationship where you love each other, this tends to happen anyway.

So yes, I do see staying together as a choice, and one that should be reassessed on a regular basis, but I still see marriage as a commitment to loyalty and considering the other person's needs as important as one's own. As long as both partners do that, there won't be much conflict.

I would never use the word 'vow' period. Even as a word, it sort of gives me the heebie jeebies. For my marriage, the phrase 'one day at a time' suits better. Marriage is tough and things can change at any time.

I don't want to be overloaded with someone's expectations of being happy or to overload anyone with mine.
I agree that support should be a given but the balance can tip very easily into co-dependence, abuse and a host of other things, and yes you're right, regular reassessment is important.

" marriage is not simply a binding contract but an ongoing choice, "

I think that's a very good way of putting it actually. If you strip away all the hearts, flowers and 'love' aspect of marriage, it's fundamentally a rolling contract (to borrow a business term) which everyone adheres to voluntarily unless there is some kind of breach of that contract or one party wants it to end. Marriages where it is assumed that, however bad it gets, everyone will stick around regardless leads to, at best, complacency and, at worst, contempt.

Maybe he simply means that his ongoing choice is to honour the vows as stated, and that he is not going to bail on you whilst you deal with these issues. The marriage is what you make it.

Unless there is stuff you haven't posted which makes you doubt your DH's integrity, I think you can accept his view as something that is part of his being your rock. And that the character and motivation of the person making and sticking to the vows makes an important difference to the value and intention of those promises.

If one partner deliberately decides to break a vow then the contract is broken and the other is released from their promise. If one is ill and the other cares for them - that's For Better or Worse...that's love in fact.

In your Father's case he completely tore up the love, honour and protect vow the moment he started DV..... If I was your Mum at that point I would have felt completely free to break the better or worse/death do us part bits over my knee and bugger off - especially if I had DC in the house.

I think that's a very good way of putting it actually. If you strip away all the hearts, flowers and 'love' aspect of marriage, it's fundamentally a rolling contract (to borrow a business term) which everyone adheres to voluntarily unless there is some kind of breach of that contract or one party wants it to end. Marriages where it is assumed that, however bad it gets, everyone will stick around regardless leads to, at best, complacency and, at worst, contempt.

Agree with this so much I may embroider it on a cushion.

Thanks for your responses - I think I sounded more black and white than I feel. I don't doubt my DH's integrity, it just makes me uncomfortable when anyone suggests marriage is forever no matter what. Which is obviously not what he actually said, but my 'stuff' talking.

ofmiceandmen I would and have stuck with him through tough times, but I wouldn't stick with him no matter what (and by that I mean if he abused me, for example).

CogitoErgoSometimes thanks for your post, that's exactly what I was trying to say.

Great post Dahlen

That is how I see it, OP.

I think the "no matter what" is only meant to cover "whatever random shit life throws at us" and not "whatever random shit he does"

I think cogito's description is spot on - the promises aren't to be viewed separately, the whole business is an agreement between the two of you. But the default position is that you try to honour all of the contract, and that includes riding out the less-fun parts, not just giving up on the whole thing when there are the occasional "sickness", "poorer" and "worse" bits.

But that doesn't mean putting up with it when your spouse isn't making any effort to love/honour/etc or is being abusive. It was never meant to incude that.