Molly: yet another little rant about love and marriage
The popular writer I am tired of is talking about the disappointing void of meaning in marriage without religion today. Once again I do have to hand it to her that she's good at saying things people are already thinking. I remember reading a blog post from Sarah Perry about how “with the nationwide adoption of no-fault divorce and the elimination of the social stigma of divorce, the nature of marriage changed from a genuine contract to an illusory contract.” My husband and I loved the audacity of her line of reasoning even if the few other people I’ve talked about this with were like Sarah you are one crazy high decoupling chica! Just kidding they were not even willing to entertain it as a valid topic of conversation.
She’s right though. Even if you, as I do, support the right to divorce (a right I’ve directly benefited from), no-fault divorce is the water we swim in. The idea of a couple who can’t break up does not compute on some level, even to the most marriage-valuing conservatives. My husband and I have a self-imposed Catholicism to our marriage but of course we could legally get divorced. When I say I can’t - not won’t - leave him - people just have to take my word for it or think I’m a little pathetic.
My dad, an efficient and impatient businessman, has been frustrated at my long and at times convoluted quest to get my first marriage annulled. I got my verdict of nullity a few weeks ago, but along the way he was always asking “where is the grace?” “Why do you have to do all this?” etc. I explained that it’s very meaningful to me to be able to go through something that will, one day, recognize my marriage as the only true marriage of my life - it’s the only one I’ve committed myself to and felt married in. My shame at going back over the details of my first marriage gave way to a kind of freedom at being able to give the tribunal the full picture and be judged on that and not personal allegiances.
Yes, ideally my husband and I would have somehow met and been able to be together without us both being young divorcees. This is a rougher hypothetical for Paul, who would have had to remain relatively emotionally unavailable until whatever minimum age he would have entertained me as a valid prospect - probably at least like 34! I can hear him now saying he wouldn't have dated me when I was 20, though. But we did not, and I am excited and feel deeply undeserving and blessed that through joining the Church I have a chance for our devotion and seriousness to be recognized officially and spiritually.
Related idea that surely I've already put on this platform somewhere already: I think it’s lame when people purposefully take out “til death do us part” type language from their vows. Even if you fully support leaving if you are unhappy, I think that when you get married you should be romantic enough to at least in that moment believe you’re in it til death. What are you doing otherwise?