John Lackey sucks dog eggs...and is a bad person.

[Phishfan]

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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?

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[Dave Gray]

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.

[CF DolFan]

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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?

[CF DolFan]

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.

[Spider-Dan]

That other person is also not committed to the relationship if they are not willing to work on it ... that is the larger issue.

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.

[MaineDolFan]

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.

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[MaineDolFan]

^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??

[Spider-Dan]

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."