Hermenuetics

Comments

I guess it all depends on how you take those marriage vows. Did you really mean it when you said you'd stick with this guy for better or for worse? If you meant it, do it. Part of the consequences for my husband's wrongdoings is the effects they have on me and on our children. That's also part of my consequences for not staying single and having cats.

Posted By: Tami | June 25, 2009 11:55 AM

Biblically, both wives have license to end things permanently with their husbands and shouldn't feel ashamed if that's the course they choose. I think it comes down to where Jenny and Darlene are emotionally. Can they still muster enough love and respect for their husbands to try to work through it?
Also, I think the emotional state of Ensign and Sanford will affect the outcome as well. It's clear that Sanford was and is still in love with this Argentinian woman. It's hard to see how Jenny would want to resurrect the marriage when she doesn't even possess his heart.

Posted By: Paige | June 25, 2009 1:44 PM

Only if they want to. they are under no obligation.

As for Tami's insinuation that a wife's NOT participating in a HUSBAND's public confession constitutes HER failing to live up to HER marriage vows -- uh -- sounds like a case of MISPLACED moralizing. This is the price we pay for our husband's wrongdoings? Talk about loving that martyr role. And -- this is the price woman should expect to pay to avoid being single? Talk about desperate.
Jenny is coming across as one classy and eloquent lady.

Posted By: patricia | June 25, 2009 4:37 PM

Take a deep breath and relax. I don't advocate anyone martyring themselves. But I take my vows seriously. I promised for better or for worse. I didn't define what worse meant. I've been on both sides of that coin and I'm glad I stuck it out in my second marriage and made things work.

As for the other, that's humor and sarcasm. I chose to get married. That means I chose to deal with another flawed human being. I don't expect him to be perfect. But thanks for the laugh. I needed it today.

Posted By: Tami | June 25, 2009 5:13 PM

First of all - Tami, I LOVED your last sentence! Made me laugh.
As to the question being posed I can only speak for myself and say I don't believe I'd have it in me to literally stand by my husband while he's confessing his sexual sins in front of the world even if I was to stay in the marriage. But that's just me. The wives who have done that, I admire.
I wonder how many husbands would stand beside a wife publicly confessing if she was an official who got caught in a sexual affair?

Posted By: Sue | June 25, 2009 7:36 PM

I agree with Tami that if they sincerely meant their vows, then they should stick with them. Otherwise, the vows people say should be more honest: "'til death do we part or in the case of adultery..." I know that biblically, adultery makes divorce okay, but wasn't adultery a capital crime before?

Posted By: Merciel | June 25, 2009 8:25 PM

Even if the wives forgive, they will never forget. Only God can forgive and forget. The wives will learn to cope with their pain and all the wretched feelings and questions they have: "What's wrong with me that he could not love me enough to be loyal? How could I have been so stupid? Is he staying out of guilt and obligation? Will he continue to still love HER?" Later, people will think that they have "healed," and even the men will think that things have healed. But there will always be that scar, an unhealed pain, a hole in the heart and a sick feeling when something reminds her of the affair. Then years later, in one of those moments of a flashback of grief, she will ask herself even more questions: "Should I have kicked him out for good? Would the pain have truly gone away if I would have moved on with my life?" Pray for these women. Their lives will never be the same, and they will never, not ever, feel the same way about their husbands. In theory, redemption sounds like a great idea, so very Christian. But these men are not just redeeming themselves personally. They have heaped incredible pain on innocent people, and it's not fair that others have to suffer for their sins. How can anyone redeem THAT? It's obvious that the governor still loves his "dear dear friend" (what's that? The sound of gagging and retching?) who had no second thoughts about destroying another woman and her family. "Dear dear friends" don't lead you into badness. The governor was a total idiot, but the Argentine woman gambled with all of his treasures, not hers...his marriage, his career, his wife, his children, his honor, his soul, and she walked away from it and lost nothing. And she will probably get a book deal out of it. Men will stop cheating when women stop sleeping with them. Unfortunately these women get a big kick out of sleeping with forbidden men: the husbands, pastors, priests, politicians, etc. In the days and even years to come, Jenny will probably be humming the Simon and Garfunkle song, "50 Ways to Leave Your Lover," but she will rewrite the lyrics to "50 Ways to Kill Your Husband's Lover." And she will only be human for thinking that. So to answer the question of whether women should stand by when their cheating husbands confess: Hell no. Let them squirm on their own.

Posted By: Maryann | June 25, 2009 9:33 PM

The Bible permits divorce post-infidelity, but I don't think that is really what God wants. I believe wholeheartedly that God wants to see reconciliation, regardless of how difficult it is. Infidelity is a great issue because it is not simply a difficult happening in one's marriage, it is the breaking of a covenant with one's spouse and with God. Because the covenant has been broken I believe God allows the defended to no longer pursue the relationship. However, just as God stuck true to Adam, Abraham, Israel and Humanity when covenants were broken, I believe as Christians we should - but don't have - to maintain that covenant.

I do want to comment on the issue of redemption. Redemption is the buying back from sin - not religiously it is simply the buying back of something; To "Re-deem". Primarily it is these husband that needs redemption. But all of parties are hurting; the wives, the children,the families and the husbands. Sin rots everything it comes in contact with. Because of that, I believe there is room for the entire family to be redeemed from the bondage of sin as well as.

I pray for these families and the others who are dealing with this in the privacy of their own homes.

Posted By: Blackwasp19 | June 25, 2009 11:10 PM

I truly gives these wifes a medal for forgiving their husbands- and they arn't obligated. What counts is - what is God telling them to do - they need to be lead by the Holy Spirit not their flesh. But if they keep commiting adultery over and over - they obviously need to get divorced.

Posted By: Michaelle | June 26, 2009 6:39 AM

Merciel thinks the "other woman" is to blame. Let"s not blame the other woman, let's leave her out of it, as we know nothing about her, her situation, what price she's paid, etc. She wasn't part of the question. Regarding the original question, however, I beg to differ. Having been in the situation, I did
forgive. It's been almost 14 years and I almost NEVER think about it. There is complete and total trust between my husband and I, so yes, it can happen, although I do think it's rare and it certainly is not easy and it takes alot of work. The year is awful. The 2nd, a bit better, then it's easier. I think it all depends on alot of things: what happened, what caused it to happen, what types of personalities are you, how often it happened, how was your marriage before it happened, how good is your marriage counselor, how badly do you want your marriage to work. Like recovering from the death of a loved one, it gets better with time. My point is, we Americans have become so very, very judgemental and assume that "if I feel like this that everyone else should/must as well" . Maybe that isn't the case.
And why is it that the louder they holler "I'm a Christian! I'm a Christian!" the more likely (lately) it seems they are NOT...they are just SAYING they are to get votes? Oh, for the old days when honest poor folks could run for office!

Posted By: Julianna | June 26, 2009 12:26 PM

Paige hit the nail on the head. There can be no true reconciliation if Jenny does not possess his heart. If her husband is indeed still in love with this other woman, all attempts will be superficial. She is on target by saying her sons are her most important focus right now...I am reading between the lines...husband dearest is not the first concern. I doubt she will be standing with & holding hands during a press conference...I don't think she should either.

Posted By: Mickey | June 27, 2009 4:36 AM

I would ask a different question: Should the cheating politician husband ever ask his wife to stand by him at those humiliating press conferences?

I think the answer is NO, he should never ask. Maybe the wife would offer anyway, and that's totally up to her, and no one but the spouses knows what goes on in a marriage or whether it's salvageable, but I don't think a cheating husband has any ground to stand on to even impose the question on the spouse.

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | June 28, 2009 10:15 PM

Reconciliation can only happen with true repentence. It's not up to the wronged party to "make it work," especially when there is no true, deep repentence on the part of the adulterer. If there is, there is a chance. If not, this woman is free and bears no burden for the divorce.

To insist that a woman must remain faithful to an unrepentantly and continuously adulterous husband is to make a mockery of the marriage covenant and misses the point of marriage entirely. When one side has broken the covenant, it is BROKEN. Either the covenant ends, or it must be made anew. I have a friend who found out that her husband had a mistress, and when confronted, he refused to give her up. My friend's pastor actually had the gall to tell her that she would be sinning by seeking a divorce. Um, no. That's not biblical.

I certainly wouldn't stand up in public with my husband as he half-heartedly confessed only to try to salvage his political career while still being in love with another woman. Uh-uh. No way.

Oh, and of COURSE the "other woman" is to blame. She sinned just as much as he did in having a sexual relationship with a married man. Why on earth would she be blame-free and off limits?

Posted By: Robyn | June 29, 2009 11:56 AM

I found Jenny Sanford's absence from her husband's press conference(s) refreshing. I have to think the other wives were largely there for political reasons; how much do they value fidelity? marriage?
Jenny Sanford sounds angry. And she should be. If marriage matters, tough love is the strongest, most honorable route to take. Her written statement that she is willing to take him back IF he makes the necessary changes was a well-thought out communication written from a head committed to her children and to marriage "for better or for worse." But her off-the-cuff statement that "his career is not my concern" showed a hurt wife, reeling from betrayal. And a person who values marriage enough to think her husband, no matter who he is, should be faithful to his vows. That she said both is what makes Jenny Sanford so admirable. She cares, she's hurt, but she knows she has to be willing to forgive this man. As much as she would like to punch him out right now.

Posted By: Rachelle | July 1, 2009 1:03 AM

I don't see any good reason for a political wife to hold a joint press conference with her husband in these situations. In this specific context, the message sent isn't just "I forgive/am willing to forgive him" (a good message), but also "I support him continuing this job, and if I do, so should you." Adultery and/or prostitution is recognized as being a violation of the code of conduct for holding political office; it's normal and, I believe, healthy to not help someone retain a position they're in peril of losing because of deliberate professional misconduct. This applies to all professions and all types of misconduct.

This doesn't mean the husband is beyond forgiveness, by any means - I'm just suggesting that personal reconciliation isn't and shouldn't be equated with the right to hold office. There's an idea going around that forgiveness = repealing all consequences for one's actions. I'm thinking that idea is...incorrect.

Posted By: elly | July 1, 2009 11:42 AM

Love your post, Julianna. I agree!

Posted By: Lauren | August 22, 2009 9:23 AM