Relationships Talk

Dear Judge Kavanaugh,

Congratulations on your nomination to replace Anthony Kennedy, your former boss, on the Supreme Court. You probably underrated Justice Kennedy’s sense of irony, as I did. For his final act, Kennedy, known for waxing mystical about dignity, allowed a man who routinely displays the most undignified of behavior to name his successor. But with the announcement of your nomination, we can hope the taint of being selected by Trump will quickly fade. You’ll be here long after Trump is gone, possibly four decades.

In the coming months you’ll have to run the gantlet toward Senate confirmation. While Democrats will sound every alarm about your qualifications and temperament, which by all indications are excellent, we all know there’s little chance of your not being confirmed, given the composition of the Senate. Your nomination represents, for many, the fruition of a conservative dream to install a Justice who will overturn Roe v. Wade and wrest the Court back from where Justice Kennedy surprisingly enabled it to go. But you are a judge. You’ll tell the senators that you don’t have predetermined votes on the matters you may hear. It’s easy for people to assume that this is an evasion, used to cloak ideology. But it’s an affirmative good for a judge to perform and cultivate a stance of openness, even if many see it as Kabuki theatre.

Judicial power on the Court isn’t the power to persuade but the power to be persuaded. What was notable about your predecessor was not, as many think, being in the “middle” of an ideological spectrum. It was his openness to argument. I imagine you heard, while clerking for Kennedy, that snotty young law clerks referred to him as “Flipper.” As you know, the nickname originated in 1992, with his most famous flip, on abortion, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, five years after his nomination by President Ronald Reagan. Kennedy changed his initial vote, defying heavy expectations that a conservative Court would finally overturn Roe, after two decades. To the contrary, he and two other Republican-appointed Justices, Sandra Day O’Connor and David Souter (my former boss), crafted a plurality opinion preserving the core of Roe’s holding that states couldn’t make abortion illegal. (They received hate mail for that decision daily for the remainder of their tenures.) The opinion did hold that abortion restrictions were permitted if they didn’t impose an “undue burden”—a standard that practically welcomed legislatures to undermine access. But it also featured a striking sentence from Kennedy: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” That idea kicked off an evolution that led, in later decades, to his opinions holding that states could not criminalize same-sex sex, in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), and that states must allow same-sex couples to marry, in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015).

Such decisions revealed Kennedy’s willingness to be reviled by those who counted on him to be conservative. But the truth is that, despite some unfolding surprises in his jurisprudence, Kennedy generally did vote with the right. He frustrated liberals more often than not. He authored Citizens United and voted against campaign-finance regulation, criminal defendants, labor unions, anti-discrimination laws, voting-rights provisions, Obamacare, and consumer-protection laws. His final term included a vote to uphold the so-called Muslim ban and an opinion in favor of the Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.

Yet Kennedy also became the most powerful Justice on the Court, especially after Justice O’Connor, the longtime centrist, retired, twelve years ago. Kennedy was like Ohio. The risk that he would flip meant his colleagues had no choice but to court his vote, from the left and the right, and work to keep it secure by tailoring their opinions to insure he wouldn’t defect. Litigants effectively directed their briefs and arguments to Kennedy alone, because it was often assumed that the rest were already decided. Commentators studied Kennedy’s moves more closely than they did the other Justices’. Court watching became not so much counting votes but trying to read Kennedy’s psyche. What made the rhythm of the Supreme Court term exciting, dramatic, and suspenseful was that Kennedy was in play, and neither we nor his colleagues knew what would happen.

Judge Kavanaugh, your predecessor was sometimes mocked for not being certain of his own mind. But judges, liberal or conservative, should not be wholly predictable; they should be open to complexity, to ambivalence, to frustrating supporters and withstanding criticism. You can’t be expected to vote as Kennedy did. Republicans have high hopes about securing a solid conservative block, and the Court will surely take a conservative turn. This would keep with the results of the 2016 Presidential election, and with the design put in place by the Constitution. But if you simply walk in lockstep with the block, your influence as an individual Justice will naturally be limited. Many conservative lawyers respect Justice Clarence Thomas’s jurisprudence, but most people, even lawyers, know little of him beyond memories of his controversial confirmation hearing in 1991. His profile sunk like a stone, not because of the quality of his work but in large part because his solid predictability made him appear not to matter in determining results. Even more so for Justice Alito. Chief Justice Roberts, meanwhile, has shown variability in upholding Obamacare. Justice Gorsuch cast a fifth vote with the four liberal Justices ruling against the Trump Administration in an immigration case this past term, inspiring immediate complaints from the President that he might not be a reliable conservative.

Not to appeal unduly to narcissism, but I hope you’ll aim to be distinctive and influential, to bring to the Court a new voice of a new generation, especially as one of its youngest members. Your colleagues, litigants, and the public should have to vie to persuade you of the best arguments and their consequences, rather than taking your vote as a given. If the Court invariably produces decisions featuring the same five against the same four, it can, for the public, have little claim to legal open-mindedness, neutrality, or legitimacy.

With your nomination, many are convinced that Roe v. Wade is on the cusp of being overturned. Even if you don’t take my advice, my guess is that this will not happen overnight. It would take many years for the Court to accomplish that reversal in a way that preserves a sense of respect for precedent, particularly since the legal, social, and cultural changes Roe enabled, including legal gay sex and gay marriage, are now so strongly entrenched in the country, and especially in the class of legal professionals. Judges rightfully don’t relish the appearance of doing the bidding of any party, movement, or President. A quick volte-face would heighten that sense. But, to be brutally honest, Judge Kavanaugh, if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned because of your appointment, it would be the biggest possible gift you could give the Democratic Party. Roe led to an intense backlash that fuelled the powerful rise of modern conservative social movements. Overturning it would likely galvanize effective and far-reaching political organizing on the left, more so than anything else to emanate from the Court in the coming decades. Perhaps you will—for reasons of prudence, restraint, and even power—give everyone less faith in their predictions about you.

Intelligent women should consider marrying less clever men if they want to start a family, according to researchers.

There are simply not enough brainy men to go round – so women may need to widen their search, warned the author of a report that found a growing number of professional women were freezing their eggs because they couldn’t find ‘Mr Right’.

‘There are fewer educated men in the world for educated women to partner with,’ said Marcia Inhorn, professor of anthropology at Yale University.

‘So if women want to find a partner with whom they can have children, they need a more expansive notion of who is Mr Right.

‘A good partner might not be exactly someone of similar educational background and socio-economic circumstances but there can still be really wonderful relationships with men who are interested in marriage and parenthood.’ According to the World Bank, 70 countries have more women educated to university level than men. In Britain, the proportion of female students rose from 45 per cent in 1985 to 54 per cent in 2000.

Those who graduated in 2000 are now in their mid to late 30s and, according to Prof Inhorn, many are turning to egg freezing because they are unable to find partners of similar intelligence and educational background.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority said 1,173 British women had eggs frozen in 2016, a ten per cent rise on the previous year.

Professor Inhorn’s study, presented at the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology’s meeting in Barcelona, involved questioning 150 American and Israeli women with high levels of education who had chosen to freeze their eggs.

She found that 85 per cent of them were single and the majority had opted for egg freezing due to a ‘lack of a stable partner’.

But women may be slow to follow Professor Inhorn’s advice as her own research also shows that hypogamy or ‘marrying down’ is unpopular with women.

‘They didn’t want to marry or partner with someone less educated and of lower socio-economic status,’ she said. ‘They wanted equality in their relationship.’ In fact, another study co-authored by Professor Inhorn found women often desired men from a higher socio-economic level.

‘Traditionally, women in societies around the world have tried to achieve hypergamy, or “marrying up” in an attempt to secure a better future for themselves and their children,’ the study said, although it acknowledged that with more women in education, ‘these trends may be reversing’.

While we’re on the topic, discover what in the world is ‘gatsbying’? plus 5 other confusing AF dating terms explained. Plus, a woman has opened up about the painful condition which means she’s still a virgin in her mid-20s.

SUBSCRIBE TO THE DAILY TELEGRAPH

Download The Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph app for your smartphone or tablet to get the full story.

APPLE: DOWNLOAD THE APP FOR iOS

GOOGLE PLAY: DOWNLOAD THE APP FOR ANDROID

SHEBOYGAN – At the center of Audrey and Roger Otten’s relationship is faith, a commitment to loving one another despite disagreements and daily hugs.

The Sheboygan couple has been married for 64 and a half years.

That’s almost three times the amount of time I’ve spent on this earth.

Not only that, between the two of them, they have served 50 years on Sheboygan city government. And they have not always agreed on what was best for their city or their respective districts. Yet, here they are 64 years of marriage later.

What’s love like in Sheboygan? Join the Lowkey Lovesick Facebook group!

It helps that Audrey and Roger have basically known each other their entire lives.

“We both went to Christian grade school. Same class, all through to 8th grade,” Audrey told me when I sat down with them one afternoon.

MORE LOVE: Shared grief gives Plymouth couple second chance at love

MORE LOVE: ‘Tears and chocolate’ help Sheboyganites get over being dumped

Although friends throughout, the pair parted ways come high school. Roger went to Sheboygan North High School and Audrey went to Central (now South).

Roger went away to college after high school, but it was after he came home from his first year that the two began dating. It was 1950, and the pair had gone to a choir party at their church.

“That was the first of our dating–after him taking me home from that,” Audrey said shyly with a backward flick of her wrist. She and Roger shared a quick, warm smile. 

Old fashioned letters

It wasn’t “happily ever after” for the pair after they started dating though.

“I went to service in 1951,” Roger explained. “I was gone for almost two years.”

Even though he was away fighting in the Korean War, the two stayed in touch.

“We had letters and one telephone call during that time,” Audrey said.

I gained a bit of insight as to how they lasted so long from this anecdote. 

“We didn’t get married until we were 23. And having two years in service, we got to write to each other,” Audrey revealed. “You get to know each other pretty good that way. I think that helped us.”

When Roger came home, they didn’t waste any more time and got married in 1954. Following the wedding, they remained in Sheboygan. They got a house, had five kids and raised them in a home where every day they showed them the value of loving one another.

Their children, Cindy, Russ, Scott, Jeff and Sherry all now have their own lives and their own stories. They produced 20 grandkids for Audrey and Roger and those grandkids produced 34 great grandkids. 

Throughout the interview, the pair circled back to the same phrase over and over: “We’ve been blessed.”

Their faith plays a central role in their long relationship.

“I think a lot of prayer and knowing Christ is our savior. That’s the glue,” Roger said. The pair still go to church every Sunday.

“I think we both have the same goals for us and for our family,” Audrey said.

This dedication to their Christian faith is what also helped them get through any and all disagreements throughout their political careers.

Roger is serving his 30th year on the Sheboygan County Board this year. Prior to that he was an alderman for eight years starting in 1970. Although no longer in the role, Audrey served as an alderwoman for Sheboygan’s 8th district for 12 years from 1990 to 2012.

They did not always agree on issues affecting the community.

“There were times when I’d say to him, ‘That’s not how you should vote.'” He’d say, ‘Why?’ and I would explain,” Audrey said. “We don’t always have to agree.”

It’s not just politics either. Six days of the week, the pair get up early and go to the YMCA and swim. 

“He doesn’t like to get out of bed,” Audrey said. “So it’s not a big disagreement. I could take my own car, but then he probably wouldn’t come, so I wait.”

Roger chuckled at his wife’s teasing.

No matter the disagreement, the pair has always come back to their similar goals and worked through whatever issue was at hand.

“We really like to see things from a Christian perspective. We feel we need more Christians in government. That’s really why we serve,” Roger said. “We love our community.”

Throughout, the pair would say the same thing or finish each other’s sentences.

“I think we talked a lot about issues…” Roger started.

“…at the dinner table,” Audrey finished.

Visible love is key

The pair stressed the importance of doing activities together on a regular basis.

“We love to make a puzzle together,” Audrey said. Every night they play a game together or do Sudoku puzzles. 

“I think it has to be evident that you love each other,” Roger said. The pair hold hands and are very affectionate.

They are happy that the idea of visible love has transferred to their kids and now their grand and great grandkids.

“What do I need from you every day?” Audrey asked Roger.

“A hug,” Roger answered without hesitation.

“I need my hugs,” Audrey said with a simple shrug of her shoulders.

If you think you have an interesting love story or know a couple with an interesting love story, let us know. Lowkey Lovesick is written by Marina Affo. She can be contacted at maffo@sheboyganpress.com or on twitter @marina_affo. 

Read or Share this story: https://shebpr.es/2u8sRYM

Last time we met up, we talked about why Christians have such a bizarrely-regressive view of marriage. In essence, rigidly codified relationships help keep their authoritarian vision alive. Today, let’s dive into the rules that get that rigid view ensconced in people’s everyday realities.

(Hartwig HKD, CC-ND.)

Marriage Advice That Isn’t Really “Advice.”

In choosing sources for these sets of rules, I had to laugh. Initially, I simply searched for generic Christian sites. I planned to winnow them down to fundagelicalism. But almost all of the sites that turned up were already fundagelical. So I double-checked my results with DuckDuckGo.

Nope, I was seeing the results correctly. Toxic Christians just have a lot to say about How to Marriage Properly!

And their leaders’ marriage advice wasn’t particularly advice. These writers’ suggestions aren’t actually suggestions. They all hint that their rules are divinely-mandated.

Authoritarians gonna authoritarian, I guess.

Our Would-Be Advisors.

What Christians Want to Know. A large, sprawling site full of mostly fundagelical-sounding admonitions to Jesus harder. They give us “10 Good Christian Marriage Rules.”

Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN). Not quite as wingnutty as World Nut Net Daily, but about as consistently reminiscent of a hundred angry loons locked in a hogshead of moonshine. They generously provide “Ten Biblical Rules for a Happy Marriage.”

Crosswalk. A hit or miss fundagelical-leaning site. Sometimes they feature progressive Christians’ work. And then sometimes they run pearl-clutching howlers like “5 Signs Your Church Might Be Heading Toward Progressive Christianity.” (OH NOES!) Their contribution today is a Jim Daly piece, “6 Things That Make for a Healthy Marriage.” This Focus on the Family tin-pot dictator extensively borrows here from the ideas of a twice-divorced marriage and family therapist whose work has been devastatingly drubbed by independent research and review. I’m sure it’ll be great. (/s)

The Gospel Coalition (TGC). This ultra-fundagelical TRUE CHRISTIAN™ site never fails to deliver cray-cray to huge crowds of Christians who lost their discernment ages ago. Unsurprisingly, they had a lot to say about marriage. I went with three of their posts, in the end: “Pursue Complementarity, Not Compatibility,” “Marriage Isn’t Meant to Meet Your Needs,” and “Six Things You Can Do to Grow (or Save) Your Marriage.”

Dr. James Dobson’s Family Talk. Yes, this leader of Focus on the Family still boasts a big following–for a reason that will be immediately clear. He’s a big guy, a tough ol’ manly-man who advises his fellow men to physically torture animals and small children to gain dominance over them. Even other evangelicals call him “callous.” And he’s got “10 Rules In Creating A Win-Win Marriage.”

Rule: Don’t Go to Bed Angry.

Mr. Captain and I both have special cause to hate this one–and he’s never been married to a Christian. This rule shows up everywhere in marriage advice lists. The idea is that couples should not go to sleep while a conflict simmers between them. They must instead stay awake and fighting–all the way till dawn if need be–to resolve the conflict somehow.

What Christians Want to Know and CBN both link this bad advice to Ephesians 4:26: “Do not let the sun go down while you are angry.”

Christians often talk about the Bible being obviously divinely-inspired (or -written!). But this verse is a great contradiction to that claim. It is absolutely horrible advice for most people. As a writer for Slate points out, super-tired, super-stressed people aren’t exactly operating on all thrusters. And if the fight happens to take place on a work or school night, then they’ll be operating at a serious deficit the next day.

Psychologists often classify sleep deprivation as a form of torture. No wonder toxic Christians like it.

Biff and I both got this advice and thought it was grand. In reality, it was not grand. Biff had a habit of saying whatever he needed to say to end a conflict. He was a grandmaster at apologizing without follow-through. So no matter how bad our fights got–and friends, those fights got baaaaaad–what might seem like a resolution really wasn’t.

GRADE: D-. For a few couples that tend to sit on conflicts indefinitely until they boil over, this advice might give them the kick in the pants they need to handle problems before they escalate too far to fix. But for most people, all this advice ensures is that they’ll be having some very bad fights while they are at their absolute worst. Some conflicts need resolution now. Many others can and should be postponed until this platoon is better rested.

Rule: Men Must Dominate, Always, Mostly.

Obviously, toxic Christians can’t even conceive of an egalitarian marriage. All of the sites demonized the idea, at least indirectly. TGC even linked egalitarian marriage to the same-sex marriage rights, implying that none of this human-rights stuff would have happened if the Christian Right were still in control of marriage. Their notion of marriage is typically described as complementarian, which we’ve already discovered is simply Jesus-flavored sexism.

What Christians Want to Know cites Bible verses to support their contention that anybody who views marriage as a “50-50 agreement” will fail. In the complementarian view, husbands must be 100% dominant, and wives must be 100% submissive.

However, women must obey their husbands’ demands regardless. (I’ve seen other Christian advice before that suggests that if a husband orders a wife to do something totally out-of-bounds, then she can refuse safely. Alas, the listed sources don’t allow for that.)

TGC goes the same route. They offer up even more Bible verses designed to slam women for daring to want decent treatment even when their husbands’ “leadership” is admittedly “imperfect.” Crosswalk and a few others soften that demand somewhat. They suggest that sometimes it might be okay if “husbands accept influence from their wives.” But they offer no mechanisms for how that might be done or what this influencing might look like (aside from one weird anecdote about a wife criticizing her husband’s unsafe driving).

I’ll simply note here that the harder my ex Biff tried to apply this advice to our marriage, the faster it deteriorated.

GRADE: F. Husbands get all the power in the relationship and no concrete responsibilities. By contrast, wives get ordered to serve and obey, with exceedingly numerous and concrete responsibilities that cannot be cast aside. Husbands face no penalties for abrogating their responsibilities. Wives face innumerable penalties for the same “sin.” Yeah, there is no way this is going to turn out well.

Rule: Be Nice To Each Other, Jesus Edition.

It amazed me to see how often Christian leaders felt the need to remind their followers to be nice to their spouses. These people are supposed to be inhabited by a real live god of infinite love and mercy. And yet for some reason, Christians must be reminded–with examples!–to treat each other with graciousness, patience, and compassion.

CBN tells readers that every day, they should say at least one nice thing to their spouses. They must also “never meet without an affectionate welcome.” What Christians Want to Know went the same route.

Crosswalk suggested a specific ratio of positive-to-negative interactions: 5:1 at a “minimum.” For every hostile or angry thing they said or did, they should balance it with at least 5 nice and loving things. They then suggest that when a husband is busy on Facebook or whatever and his wife wants his attention, maybe he should “lift his eyes from the sports page for a second or two.” They breathlessly continue that if he then “actually listens to what she has to say, that’s a real connection!” (I CAN’T EVEN.)

Most of this advice centers around trying to drag husbands, kicking and screaming, toward treating their wives with the barest modicum of civility and friendliness. Mostly it sounds like husbands routinely regard their wives as ornaments, live-in housekeepers, and sex dolls, not true partners. And in that sense, yeah, Christians haven’t changed at all–except to get worse–since I was one of them. Biff had no idea how to relate to me, and our culture told him such a task was impossible anyway.

GRADE: C. I guess if someone just has no idea how to interact with other human beings, some of this wouldn’t be terrible advice. And that’s the intended audience for Christian marriage advice, so in that sense it’s kind of okay. It’s just hard to read any of it without forming a firm opinion about fundagelical men needing to take kindergarten over again before being allowed to propose to anybody.

Quick Aside: Why TRUE CHRISTIANS™ Fight.

If they’re breathing, your mate will eventually offend you.

—CBN, apparently sharing a newsflash

Naturally, in a complementarian marriage a couple is going to see a lot of conflicts. Those conflicts will be constant, daily, and largely-unresolvable. They will typically center around two general and related areas.

• Fights for dominance. One spouse will be seeking power over the other. The other spouse won’t appreciate the grab at their expense. To gain that dominance, partners deploy deception, hostility, mistreatment, shows of blitheringly-obvious thoughtlessness, and emotional manipulation. As a result, seething resentment and frustration can easily bubble up into searing aggression. Spouses also retaliate against each other for already-seized dominance.
• Disagreements about resource allocation. The resources include money, time, and emotional energy. They’re all finite. Dominance enters into these discussions as well. Really, dominance ultimately threads its way into everything toxic Christians do. Even partners who don’t have a lot of conflicts might have trouble reaching agreement about resource expenditure.

So Christian leaders must address this dragon in the garage. They can’t pretend otherwise: even the truest of all TRUE CHRISTIANS™ are going to have fights. The TRUE-est Christians just about always have interpersonal drama going on that can be seen from outer orbit.

Rule: How to Fight, Jesus Style.

James Dobson teaches Christian married couples not to “control [the other person] with sarcasm, rage, threats, manipulation, shame, jealousy or silence.” When those couples fight anyway, they should seek forgiveness whenever they do something wrong, and extend forgiveness whenever it’s asked for.

In Reality-Land, though, I’ve never encountered a group of people more purely terrified of being wrong than toxic Christians. Dobson’s lofty advice is impossible for them to follow.

TGC suggests make-up sex. I’m not kidding: “Sex is therapy. Be generous in your application.” In their complementarian post, they also instruct women to “honor” their husbands instead of “lashing out or undermining” them. Crosswalk tells spouses to start disagreements “softly, without critical, contemptuous remarks about the other person.” (Remember the Duggar women?)

The central problem is that both spouses in a fundagelical marriage generally view power as the ultimate goal. When we talk about give-and-take in relationships, they learn that it means that sometimes they tread on their partner, and sometimes they get trod upon in turn. Whoever does more treading-on and endures less getting-trod-upon wins the game that day, that year, and that lifetime.

It wasn’t till I lost the idea of power being a focus in relationships that I was able to learn to fight fair. Neither Biff nor I possessed that skill during our marriage.

GRADE: F. Christian leaders really can’t engage with the basic reasons why Christian couples fight, so their advice about how to fight falls flat. Their advice sounds like a suggestion to focus on splinting an accident victim’s broken ankle when there’s a sucking chest wound going on.

Rule: Nobody’s Allowed to Remember Past Problems.

Christian leaders think that all fights can be overcome with Jesus Power. Once they are, then couples must then “forget the past,” as What Christians Want to Know put it. They think it’s “amazing” that people can remember wrongs committed against them for years. (Space aliens invented Christianity, right? Except they didn’t much like humans?)

CBN admonishes readers to “never bring up mistakes of the past.” TGC’s writer teaches that inevitable crises in marriage only point to how totally “sinful” people are. Just as their god forgives everything upon demand, people must forgive each other upon demand. And then, once one spouse has forgiven the other, that person must forget about the offense. “Forgiving isn’t forgiving unless it is forgetting.” James Dobson appears to concur.

By this advice, Christian leaders mean that wronged spouses should never bring up the offense again. For example, Dobson tell us that we must not keep “a short laundry list of offenses” or “scroll them out in front of our spouse during times of conflict or disagreement.”

In reality, though, spouses trapped in toxic Christianity can’t ever really come to a fair resolution of conflicts. I knew a lot of women while I was Christian who resembled simmering cauldrons of barely-controlled rage. Because spouses never reach true resolution, they can’t find a place of true forgiveness. And without that forgiveness, it’s really hard to let go of an offense. The offense classifies in our minds as still ongoing.

Worse yet, sometimes it’s actually better for someone wronged not to forget about an offense.

GRADE: D. If Christians could actually forgive each other and move past wrongs committed against each other, then yes, part of fair fighting is not bringing up old offenses. Absolutely yes. But generally what’s happening here is that spouses get told to forgive upon command, and then told they must never ever talk about the offense again. It’s forgiven and more importantly forgotten. Why are you still harping about this? JEEZ.

(Bill Jacobus, CC.)

RULE: Always Be Jesus-ing.

Christian marriage advice-givers often decide that happiness and fulfillment are completely out of reach. Instead, they drill down harder on the idea that marriage isn’t about happiness anyway. I find this attitude suspiciously self-serving.

As we saw last time we met up, many Christians view marriage as an expression of their religion’s ideals rather than a partnership between two people. That viewpoint makes happiness almost a sinful expression of selfishness.

TGC’s writer tells us that if someone wants marriage to make them happy or meet their needs, that’s not even “real love.” Instead, it’s “a respectable form of selfishness.” Couples who seek that kind of fulfillment will destroy not only their own marriage, but society itself.

A strikingly-young TGC writer tells us that couples should stop worrying even about whether or not they’re compatible. He thinks that gosh, nobody is compatible. Instead, people should concentrate on finding a partner who can Jesus super-hard and fulfill the role that their god totally allocated to that person. Another similarly young TGC author sets up accountabilibuddies for married couples. What Christians Want to Know also insists that Christians should put their religion ahead of their spouses.

GRADE: F. I doubt we could find a more nonsensical, irrelevant teaching in Christianity than this one.

The Cruel Dilemma.

So the rules for marriage, for Christians, range from sorta no-brainers to dear god you two are going to destroy yourselves this way. The situation can’t improve, however.

You see, Christians find themselves in an untenable quandary regarding marriage.

On one hand, their marriages function as living advertisements for their religion. So they must always appear to be happy and in love. Indeed, most denominations teach their congregations from early childhood that their god richly blesses TRUE CHRISTIAN™ marriages.

But on the other hand, if two spouses discover that they are simply incompatible and deeply unhappy, then they can’t show it or end the marriage. Instead, they must endure each other’s company forever–because happiness isn’t the point and they were wrong to want that anyway, jeez, where’d they even hear such nonsense?

I struggle to find words adequate to the task of describing how incredibly lonely it can be, for those stuck in such a sham relationship. Even if Christians marry while feeling deep love for each other, the ruleset they receive can destroy that emotion. Their leaders set them up to fail from the get-go. When, not if the couple crashes and burns on the rocks, those leaders stand by to drag the pair over the gravel even more.

NEXT UP: I’ll show you how terrible Christian marriage advice plays out in the real world. See you soon!

Endnotes.

Come join us on Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter, and our forum at rolltodisbelieve.com!

If you like what you see, I would love to have your support. My PayPal is captain_cassidy@yahoo.com (that’s an underscore in there) for one-time tips. I also welcome monthly patrons via Patreon with Roll to Disbelieve. Thanks!