The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I hated John Lackey when he was with the Angels.  I hate him now.

I've mentioned that a couple times, right?

Anyway, I've given him a semi pass because his wife of four years is battling breast cancer.  Young girl, stage 2.  She had a double mastectomy in March and, as of June, was still receiving active chemo treatments.  When the love of your life, your wife, is dealing with a life threatening issue it might be hard to focus.  So, in that respect, I've ramped down my feelings on the guy a little. 

Until this morning.

Turns out that Lackey left her and filed for divorce this past Friday. 

Good guy, that John Lackey.  I knew I hated you for a reason.  It shouldn't matter what these guys do off the field, I know, but I can't help but let this impact my feelings.

He pretty much had a good start against the Yankees with Boston's season on the line. If filing for divorce is what cleared his head....uggh. Don't even want to finish that sentence.

The rumor mill is buzzing like crazy up here, his wife is from Maine.  Her parents owned some places around this area before they retired and moved to Cali, you literally can't bump into someone who doesn't know someone from the Clark family.  Example: My wife's best friend was college roommates with Krista's best friend at UNH.  That type of "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" type thing.

Everyone is saying that she was completely blindsided by being served divorce papers.  Apparently she had a miscarriage prior to being diagnosed with breast cancer.  Then she was hit with that awful diagnosis.

From afar it looks like he is simply jumping ship.  Nice guy.

You shouldn't stay in a bad marriage just because the other person is sick, in my opinion.  I don't know this guy at all, or his specific situation, but staying together because of cancer seems like a bad reason to stay together.

Personally I believe in "for better or worse."  Marriage isn't dating, you don't get to bail when it gets hard.

i heard she was from sanford, but i could be wrong.

I can see your point, but if she had a miscarriage, that means they were at least intimate recently. Not saying sleeping together means people are happy, but it doesn't sound like John was on the couch for a year and just didn't get around to filing for divorce.

I am sure John Henry will feel a bit better now that he gets to right a check to John for only half the amount as before. The other half is going to his wife.

I have to agree with Maine.  I've been with my wife for more than 20 years.  There are times when I want to strangle her, but I don't because I love her. 

Marriage is about the integrity of keeping the vows you took on your wedding day.  "For better or for worse, until death do us part.  Forsaking all others, keeping ourselves only for each other."

I hate hearing people say this. It either shows short sightedness or stubbornness in my opinion.

Disclaimer: I have no knowledge of John Lackey's situation and am commenting strictly on the policy Maine stated.

You do realize things in the worse category include things such as infidelity, criminal activity, abuse, etc. Some things cannot be tolerated and are inexcusable. "Til death do us part" is archaic in the modern world. Sometimes divorce is caused by the unhappiness of the other person and nothing can be done on your end. It is just a fact of life.

^Are you married?

No, I did 8 years of living together but never proposed. Maybe that is why we view it differently? I understand wanting and expecting a marriage to last but to say outright that nothing should cause one to end is not realistic or even healthy IMO. There are just some items in the "for worse" category that are inexcusable.

it doesnt matter if he's married or not, for better or worse is a dumb idea.  that way of thinking in ANY aspect of life is dangerous.  sure, in some cases it's ok, but in most it's not.  cheating?  stealing my money?  just being a miserable person?  see ya!  a lot of people in life need to learn when to cut their losses and run; it leads to a lot more happiness in life.

I'm married, but if my wife cheats, I'm out.

Marriage only lasts because of "For better or worse". I am willing to bet that most marriages that succeed only succeeded because both were committed to the marriage.  If you are not you will most always find a way out when it gets mundane or requires more work than you are wanting to deal with.  If you take away the availabliity of an out clause ... you will find a way to make it work.

I know that there have been times when my marriage required more effort than I or my wife wanted to give but our decisions were directly affected by what was best for the marriage and maybe not what we felt was best for us (individually) at that particular moment. 

In my opinion if you are not willing to dedicate yourself to "For better or worse" then you shouldn't get married. I can guarantee you there is always a "worse"!

Thank you.

If you aren't prepared to stick through tough times, date.  Don't get married.  People get married and then run at the slightest hint of a problem.  I think a lot of you are forgetting that vows also include other words in those vows as well.

I also think a lot of you are taking liberty with the saying "for better or for worse."  A physically abusive relationship is not a relationship that has taken a turn for the worst that needs to be "worked on."  The person being abused has no other recourse than to leave.  The person doing the abusing has violated their vows.

I rather like the Buddhist wedding vows:

“In the future, happy occasions will come as surely as the morning.
Difficult times will come as surely as the night.
When things go joyously, meditate according to the Buddhist tradition.
When things go badly, meditate.
Meditation in the manner of the Compassionate Buddha will guide your life.
To say the words ‘love and compassion’ is easy.
But to accept that love and compassion are built upon patience
and perseverance is not easy.”

Marriage sure is great when everything is going well.  Money is there, both people are happy, bills are paid, mouths are fed, everyone is healthy.  However, as the saying goes above, "perseverance is not easy."  Marriage is not easy, yet people dive in head first...and then dive right back out as soon as things get hard.  Hence the divorce rate in this country.

So yes, I whole heartedly believe and subscribe in "for better or for worse."  If my wife cheated on me I would be crushed.  I would feel violated, my trust would be broken.  Yet my wife is fallible and not without fault, as am I.  Cheating is a symptom of a larger problem.  I wouldn't bail on my wife because she cheated.  That would be a knee jerk reaction.  There very well may be larger issues at hand that we can't work out.  Or it could have been a moment in time that she wishes with all of her being that she could un-do.

If people bailed on every friend they have as easily as folks do on their spouses, no one would have friends.  There has to be an allowance in this world for mistakes, lapses of judgement and differences of opinion.  You decided that this person was worthy of "spending the rest of your life with."  I didn't realize wedding vows stated "I will hang around as long as everything is fun.  Make a mistake and I'm gone."

Back to one of Dave's original statements:  Yes, cancer is most certainly 100% reason to STAY in a marriage, even if that marriage is bad.  It's 100% selfish to leave.  Working together, side by side, could very well turn that "bad" marriage back to good, all while not bailing on someone during their darkest hour.  John Lackey is an indefensible disgusting human being for running out on his wife when she needs every person around her to support her. 

Marriage isn't "his needs" and "her needs."  It's "our needs" while meeting as close to the middle so everyone is happy.  Lackey, clearly, is "his needs."  It's awful.

I am not old fashioned.  I believe marriage is a partnership, an equal one.  I think some things you can't recover from (physical or verbal abuse).  But I feel very stronly that if you say this if front of your friends and family:

"...better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and health, until death do us part."

You better damn well mean it.

And sorry, I also feel that if you have never been married and have never faced the struggles that come with that union you don't have much ground to stand on to disagree with those vows.  Dating for eight years is a long time, however you could walk away without any fan fare at any time.  No matter how you spin it, marriage is different - it's a different level.  There are some things in this life that you have no business speaking to without experience.  "I know what you're feeling, I've been sick too", coming from someone who has had the flu towards someone with brain cancer and mets to the liver is, frankly, irresponsible. 

"I've dated someone for a long time?"  Great.  It's not the same as the commitment of marriage and raising a family.  It just isn't.

Nice little rant there Maine but I am aftaid you made my point very early on before you started to belittle the fact I've never been married. You completely agreed that an abusive relationship is unhealthy and the abused needs to leave. That is all I am saying. I'm not saying people should run at the drop of a hat. All I'm saying is there are completely valid reasons for relationships to end whether the couple are married or not. Saying or even implying otherwise is being short sighted as I said before and I think you agree deep down because you already agreed abuse is a reason to dissolve a relationship. You just don't want to include that scenario into the "for worse" category in order to sound like your position of never breaking up a marriage is completely valid.

I'll give you other examples if you wish to keep going. You already discounted infidelity. I'll just say you are a very strong man. Not everyone would take that position. Here is the issue at hand though. Maybe you are willing to work past that, but maybe by the time you discover it happened it is already too late. The decision isn't yours alone on "fixing" your marriage. The other person has to be part of that and maybe their new found love interest is the stronger pull.

A married couple has their single father son living in their house when the grandfather has been caught molesting the granddaughter at night. Do you think the woman should "stand by her man?" We can alter this scenario to be a father molesting his own child. Should that couple "work it out"?

All I am saying is you are discounting the most heinous of scenarios but they do actually occur in the real world. Little problems you work on. I agree completely. I think we are closer on this topic than it appears since you somewhat agree abuse is inexcusable. That alone is an example of why the all encompassing "for better or worse" isn't valid.

Phishfan brings up a good point, but he's citing the obvious stuff; abuse, molestation, adultery.

How about a spouse that doesn't love (or even like) you anymore?  There's no intimacy, there's no companionship or even friendliness.  You're past the stage of arguing and you simply ignore each other, or treat the other person like an annoying co-worker that you have to collaborate with because of your job responsibilities.  And it's mutual, and it's been that way for years.

Does getting married mean that you had your chance to be happy and it's gone now?  Is marriage the (potential) mistake that should never be undone?

Recently in the news, Pat Robertson commented on the scenario of a husband whose wife has advanced Alzheimer's and no longer recognizes him; her original personality is effectively gone.  Should the husband stay married out of a sense of duty, even to someone who doesn't recognize him or acknowledge their marriage?

Oh, and as for the specific case of John Lackey and his soon-to-be ex-wife:

I look at a woman who marries a pro athlete the same way I would look at a man who marries a stripper.  Tell yourself whatever you want, justify it however you want, but at the end of the day, you knew what you were getting into and you shouldn't expect much sympathy when the obvious occurs.

If she was smart enough not to sign a prenup, she will be more than adequately compensated.

I don't think it's appropriate to label all marriages the same.  CF and Maine feel a certain way because they love their wives and their wives love them.

If something happens in a marriage and that is lost, I don't think it makes sense to stay together in misery.  I think it's actually worse if you love your spouse and they don't love you anymore.  It would be a lifetime of torture to not be able to move on.

Spider ... If my wife no longer loves me then there are other issues and yes they can be worked on. If she is committed to the relationship we can make it work and vice versa. If she is only interested in her immediate happiness then both of us are screwed.


I don't have much time but let me give a quick example ... which I know is oversimplifying but I have seen dozens of times in different forms.

Many times people "think" they fall out of love because they spend all their time focusing on what is wrong with their spouse. Over time their energy is spent destroying anything productive in their relationship and they can't even remember why they ever loved them.  This is usually about the time they "justify" stepping out or finding something else that makes them happy.

If committed, they get counseling, start focusing on what the positives were that attracted them in the first place, and are better off for the difficult times they went through.  If not committed they terminate the relationship always chasing the next great thing to make them happy.

I've seen this in both ministry and non Christians as it isn't exclusionary to anyone. I also have never met an older couple I have spoken to that would say they didn't come across times when they could have split. There is and will always seem to be a better situation on the other side of the fence.

CF, what if you want to go to counseling to repair the problems you see in your marriage, but your spouse doesn't agree (and still wants to remain married)?  Is that a valid reason to get a divorce?

Does "for better or for worse" mean that you are no longer entitled to happiness?

No it's not a valid reason if you agreed to "for better or for worse". If you hang in there is always hope of it getting reconciled. 

That other person is also not committed to the relationship if they are not willing to work on it ... that is the larger issue. Both have to be committed to have a good marriage and I have a hard time believing that anyone that has a plan "B" option will last over the long haul because their will always be some really crappy periods in the household.

In times like the one you mentioned above it would be very easy will bail if plan b was an option.  In fact more times than not I'd bet the second person would say "I did everything I could and it didn't work so I'm out of here" when in fact they didn't.  I think that's a very human response to justifying their choice. Very few people will say that "I just don't want to put forth the effort or sacrifice to make it work" when in fact that is exactly what is happening.  If the only option is to make it work then more times than not they will find a way because let's face it, we all want to be happy.

Suppose my wife feels that I have an intimacy problem (not the sexual euphemism kind, just plain old intimacy), but I don't see it as a problem and refuse to work on it with her.  Is that just "tough break, kid" for her?  At what point, if any, is she entitled to look elsewhere if I consistently maintain that I don't have a problem?

What if I am married to a housewife that becomes an alcoholic?  She doesn't hit anyone, and she takes care of the housework and the kids, but she's perpetually drunken, surly, and mean.  And she doesn't think she has a problem.  What is my recourse?  How about if she doesn't take care of any housework and she never helps with the kids?  What then?  What if it's not alcohol, but prescription painkillers?  What if it's cocaine?

"For better or for worse" includes a wide variety of scenarios.  It stands to reason that it shouldn't include illegal actions like domestic violence and addiction to illegal narcotics (or does it?), but there are a lot of legal actions (like alcoholism and adultery) that you seem to be dismissing.

Well, to be fair, anything next to molesting a child is going to appear to be "little."  I hear you, though.

No, not everyone would stand by someone in the case of cheating.  As I said in my previous post, that would all depend.  Got caught up in something, thought you felt something that you didn't, happened once (twice, what have you) and now, retrospect, wish you could take it back?  That MAY be something that could be fixed.  Maybe not.  I found out that she's had an affair for two and a half years, thinks she is in love with the guy, didn't want to leave me simply because of the child...

Uh, yeah.  See ya.  Have fun with your new guy. 

It would all depend.

As far as Spider's questions about alcoholics:  It's a disease.  Quite familiar with it.  Raised by one.  My father was a highly sought after coach and educator and put a lot of pressure on himself (via the pressure from the community).  From 4am to 6pm, most days, he was the cool as the other side of the pillow educator of young people, successful multi-state title winning coach (in four different sports). 

Once home?  That pressure blew.  He drowned it with beer and scotch.  And got mean.  Not physically abusive, but it was scary sometimes.  More than once my mom had to pack my sister and I into the car at 2am, out of fright, and go to my grandparents house (with our tail between our legs).  My mom stayed - because my father needed help.  She didn't want to give up on him.  Under the booze was an excellent person. 

When he passed away this past spring he had 31 years sober.  He stayed sober long after my mom passed away in 2000.  He would not have gotten sober without her love and support, she triggered the whole thing.

So, sure.  You can bail in that circumstance.  Or you can roll up your sleeves and get to work.

By no means am I disrespecting the people who stay with their spouses through alcoholism, adultery, or even domestic violence.  If you can successfully "fix" your spouse's problem and go on to have a long, productive, and mutually enjoyable marriage, that's great!

But that's not what I'm talking about.  I am specifically discussing the cited "for better or for worse" clause, and to what degree one is (morally) allowed to break it.

Almost everyone in this thread agrees that in the case of domestic violence or child molestation, "for better or for worse" doesn't apply.  Most would also agree that in the case of adultery, your martial obligation is over.  But there are a lot of gray areas like alcoholism, gambling addiction, or just plain cruelty that are not as cut-and-dried as some seem to be claiming.

Maine, as a side tangent, you've spent some time with pro athletes.  You seem to be in a position to see the purported "lifestyle" (at least peripherally).

As a layman, it is difficult for me to work up much sympathy for the wives of pro athletes when their marriage falls apart.  I know many girls grow up dreaming of marrying the quarterback of the Cowboys (or whatever), but I just don't see how they can turn a blind eye to the kind of lifestyle that an athlete on the road is subject to.

As I said, if I hear a story about a man that marries a stripper and ends up with marital problems, my response is generally something along the lines of "Sounds about right."  I think the comparison to pro athletes is fairly apt.

^I hear you loud and clear.  I think these cases need to be taken on an individual basis, however.

In the case of Krista Clark and John Lackey, she was independently wealthy (through her family) prior to meeting John.  From what I understand, she also didn't know he was a ball player when they first started dating.  He "hid" that, smartly, because he wanted people to appreciate who he is as a person, not his occupation.  So, in this case, I really don't think anyone was chasing the dream of riches, etc. 

If the marriage fell apart because of cheating, what have you, I would say you are completely correct:  Buyer beware.  Krista, from what I hear, is the sweetest person in the world - but she is her own person.  John filed for divorce of "personality differences."  They have been through a lot.  They have been trying to have a baby for three years and she has miscarried a couple times.  She has cancer.  I know how trying the baby thing can be, my wife and I are literally $50,000 in the hole on our attempts for a second child.  It can rip you apart.  Statistically, cancer is also a marriage killer.  The stress of the illness ends a lot of marriages.  Generally after the fact, however.  A person comes out of their fight with cancer different, changed. 

It changes things.

In this case, however, it sounds like Lackey just "didn't want to deal with this anymore."  He blames Krista's cancer for their lack of children (which may be true, actually, her body could very well have been aborting the children due to the growth) and also blames her for the cancer and impact it has on them as a couple.

Again, this is also all third hand stuff here.  This is literally a "friend of a friend" reporting this. 

There are two sides to every story.  Maybe Krista has (understandably) become so bitter at life that she is impossible to be around.  Maybe she wasn't "the sweetest girl in the world" and was awful to him.  I don't know. What I DO know is this:  I have some personal experience with Lackey when I was still covering the team (and he was with Anaheim).  The guy is a prick.  Then again, a lot of guys are pricks to the media. 

So who knows?  On the surface I see a guy with a reputation leaving a woman with cancer over "personality differences."  As a nosey guy with no knowledge of reality, the headline doesn't sit well with me. 

Back to your point, 100% agree with you.  I remember when Buchholz first came up. He was dating this very sweet, innocent (hot) girl that was a professor's assistant at Harvard.  You would think someone like that would be smart enough to stay away.  The team went to Chicago and, while "on the town" he met a Penthouse Pet.  I think they eventually got married.  No one knows who, but someone on the team sent his Harvard girlfriend phone pictures of him and the "pet" passed out in bed.  She flipped out.  I remember thinking "what did you expect?  He's a 21 year old BALL PLAYER."  So, yeah...I hear you loud and clear (and agree).

Wow, am I capable of responding without writing a book?  What the hell is wrong with me??

The only thing I would add is that even if the athlete isn't actually cheating, a man that has (hot) women throwing themselves at him on a nightly basis is going to be much less inclined to fight through the tough spots than an everyday citizen.  He's going to feel a lot of pressure to pull up stakes and move on.

And I appreciate the "book."