I watched another interview, among many in which someone said marriage is hard work. I don’t get that. Why is that so often said? I have not found that to be true. My relationship and subsequent marriage with David has been one of the easiest things in my life. It has never once felt like work. Going to the grocery, depositing checks, filing a tax return, renewing your driver’s license, complaining to the phone company, understanding my DirectTV bill — all are far more difficult than marriage.
[Update] David tells me he is less sure of this.
being and staying good friends makes marriage a whole lot easier.
btw and not to start a squabble between the love birds, has it occurred to you that it might just be less hard to be married to someone like david than someone like craig?
not saying it’s so, boss, but hmmm…. 🙂
soooo, what if you were married to the twit…. “hard” is not an accurate descriptor.
things might have changed for her since then but here’s a long vanity fair piece from april: Inside the Trump Marriage: Melania’s Burden
but sometimes getting a dog (or cat) is even easier
Patd: “less hard to be married to someone like david”
you nailed it friend, think that’s really the point i’m making
Anyone who has love in their life, be grateful. You have riches beyond compare.
What’s the story with the cool looking old-timey car photo? A memory souvenir of the trip north from Florida? My family trips would have included a backseat driver.
Steering wheel on the right seems so against the laws of commonsense 😉
yes, SJ, my recent road journeys inspired that
Not to throw cold water on the discussion, but of course I’m in the business that sees that marriage is hard and fails when one partner or the other takes the”easy” way out. One of the biggest things we see that is hard about marriage is the notion that the grass is always greener anywhere but “here”. If you marry someone you really like, know what you’re getting into and are inherently willing to accommodate those things in your mate that you didn’t know when you decided to make the jump from the wild and crazy romance you were involved in as lovers to the evolving relationship that inevitable changes, like age, kids, financial challenges, demands of employment, etc. place on a relationship, maybe it ain’t so hard. There are a bunch of different ways to get there, but numbers suggest that although the divorce rate dropped to a 40 year low in 2015 it is still above 50%, less than half of the couples who marry find that easier path.
On a lighter note, Bama is rolling.
being and staying good friends makes marriage a whole lot easier.
patd…. you nailed it! That’s what Rick and I tell people when they ask how we’ve made it through 42 yrs.
Although marriage longevity doesn’t necessarily denote a happy union. I know many older women who stayed because the thought of divorce was unthinkable.
Also… we don’t have children. But that’s another subject.
Once upon a time, for most people, the world was a vast place. The supply of possible partners was a great deal more limited. Often it was a matter of matching up in HS or college, becoming friends, and then making the best of the result in a society that truly looked down on those who didn’t make it all work somehow. Some were blissful, and some were miserable. Most made do agreeably taking pleasure in mutual accomplishments, children.
In our way too connected world, there is a lot of there our there. The romantic choices seem endless and people seem way too disposable for an updated replacement. This is probably not a good thing purely from the standpoint of the grass isn’t really better on the other side of the fence; it is just a different set of weeds. You might as well weed your own garden.
Judith Viorst had a a great quote, “Marriage is what keeps you together when you fall out of love long enough for you to fall back in again.”
i figured this might make an interesting discussion. good thoughts here.
Kept in touch with the Latter Day Saints branch of the family, many of whom descend from the earliest Mormon settlers in Utah & Arizona. One branch was part of the Mexico colony; polygamists. I look at their ancestral charts & wonder what it must have been like to be one of many wives & to be a child with a small town full of brothers & sisters.
Intermarriage was more often than not, especially with the stigma against the LDS in general by the “outside” world.
Btw, my avatar is in tribute to Olive Oatman, a relative on the LDS side of the family. Her father was a follower of an early splinter Mormon group. What a life that woman had.
I was wondering who that was, SJ
sjwny
I have a passel of Mormons in my tree courtesy of Ebeneezer Hunter who left Scotland for Utah. He seems to have contented himself with one wife at a time having only two and the second taken on after his wife’s death apparently to help raise the several children left behind.
The Hunters, Martins, and Householders from that extension were generally quite a bit friendlier.
Now this is cool.
Scientists detect gravitational waves from a new kind of nova, sparking a new era in astronomy
I am related to the man in the striped shirt.
Can you name him?
*Hint: he is a member of the LDS. Only hint I’m giving.
Craig
I think that’s wonderful. If you know you are in for the long haul – it is easy to let go of the small petty things that often get in the way.
EWW SJNY you are related to Mittens I hope it is very distant
Jaime taught me how to do google image search
Marriage can be rough. We prefer it smooth. I like it with veggie or salmon benedict – english muffin on the side – and coffee in the morning.
I’m sure that we each have a horse thief in the family. Some, like the trumps and gambinos, have a more than one.
Craig: I’m very happy for you and David but you make it sound like the usual “blame the victim” mentality that I heard far too often in my working days. (If you were doing it right it would be easy etc) Anyone who is fortunate enough to find true love, a soul mate, simpatico friend for life should be thanking whatever God they believe in and not taking it for granted that it’s easy. Thirty years in human services has shown me that for thousands, maybe millions, of people (especially women) around the world it’s not only hard, it can be brutal and sometimes deadly. Things often stop being “easy” when the children are thrown into the mix. More often than not the children suffer just as much, if not more, than their parents. There are many couples throughout history who have had very long, very unhappy, marriages. Those who did not “stick it out” often find themselves stigmatized by people who treat them as though they just didn’t do it right. The fact that you’re in a lasting relationship with mutual love and respect doesn’t mean it’s easy, it means you’re lucky!
The fact that you’re in a lasting relationship with mutual love and respect doesn’t mean it’s easy, it means you’re lucky!
GrannyM… as someone in that type of relationship… I agree with you 1000%!
Things often stop being “easy” when the children are thrown into the mix.
As part of a childless couple… I agree with that statement 1000% too. I agree with your entire post.
ps… I thank the Universe for Rick and I having found each other often.
I love you Ms Graham Cracker. You make this whole blog thing worthwhile.
I also love that my extended family runs from A —> Z. Never a dull day. A tree chock full o’ different nuts.
Chock Full O’ Nuts, eh ? Thanks for the coffee, Ms NY. Next time, my treat.
… Better coffee a millionaire’s money can’t buy.
Dear xrepublican,
Thank You. I drink tea. Plain. Black.
SJWNY
Judging by Agnes Hunter above, there may have been a definite standard of dress for early Mormon wives.
from the new Yorker’s upcoming oct 23 issue:
The Danger of President Pence
Trump’s critics yearn for his exit. But Mike Pence, the corporate right’s inside man, poses his own risks.
Bloomberg: Firm Tied to Trump Dossier Objects to House Panel Subpoenas
A firm that helped produce a salacious opposition-research dossier that said President Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with Russians is objecting to subpoenas issued by the House Intelligence Committee.
Joshua Levy, a lawyer for the firm, Fusion GPS, said in a letter Monday the subpoenas violate the Constitution’s First Amendment and would “chill” those running from office from conducting opposition research in an election. He also questioned whether Republican panel Chairman Devin Nunes of California was authorized by his committee colleagues to issue them.
“His subpoenas are a clear abuse of power: They are designed to obfuscate the facts and conjure up rank conspiracy theories at the behest of the president and his most obsequious allies in Congress,” Levy said in a statement.
The subpoenas seek information on the creation of the dossier, written mostly by former British spy Christopher Steele. The 35-page document included unverified allegations about Trump, including collusion with Russia and compromising information about the president. Trump has denied the allegations.
A Republican congressional official familiar with the matter responded to the letter by saying Fusion GPS is paving the way to plead the Fifth Amendment, as Congress attempts to learn whether the firm is trying to hide something.
Nunes stepped back from running the panel’s probe into Russian meddling in the U.S. election amid controversy, but kept his job running the committee and remains involved in some issues related to the probe.
It’s time to call for an investigation of nunez.
XR, 2 thumbs up.
usnews: Supreme Court Backs Push to Remove Ten Commandments Monument
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday sided with a lower court that ordered a New Mexico city to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the lawn outside City Hall.
Civil liberties advocates behind the case called the decision involving the city of Bloomfield a victory for the separation of church and state.
ACLU of New Mexico Executive Director Peter Simonson said it sends a “strong message that the government should not be in the business of picking and choosing which sets of religious beliefs enjoy special favor in the community.”
speaking of hard marriages, the atlantic:
A Remarriage of Convenience Between Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell
The drab White House briefing room is no place for a wedding, so on Monday afternoon, President Trump and Mitch McConnell headed to the Rose Garden to renew their vows.
“My relationship with this gentleman is outstanding, has been outstanding,” the president said about the Senate majority leader whom he had spent the late summer attacking and who his former chief strategist is now trying to depose. “This man,” Trump said, pointing to McConnell, “is going to get it done.”
For 40 minutes, the two Republican men stood side by side outside the White House, sharing a microphone and a message—and even, once or twice, smiling at each other. Trump praised McConnell for delivering to him the unsung success of his presidency with the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice and several more young conservative jurists who likely will extend his legacy decades beyond the end of his term. McConnell returned the compliment in a way the president in particular would appreciate: by countering the rampant media reports about acrimony between them. “We’ve been friends and acquaintances for some time,” the Kentuckian asserted. “Contrary to what some of you may have reported, we are together totally on this agenda to move America forward.”
[….]
The Trump-McConnell marriage was always one of convenience, linking the blustery and impulsive businessman with the tight-lipped D.C. insider and political tactician. So, too, is this rapprochement.
[….]
If Trump disagreed with the majority leader, he kept uncharacteristically quiet. But the makings of an arrangement for this second, loveless marriage had become clear. Trump gets his tax cuts, and maybe another shot at repealing Obamacare. McConnell gets some job security—first for his campaigning incumbents next year, and then for himself.
[…continues…]
pogo, looks like your senator is on one hand doing what he’s supposed to do and on the other making excuses about what he failed to do in the first place… and blames Obama at the same time
cbs:
Sen. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia, is calling for action to combat the U.S. opioid epidemic in response to a joint investigation by “60 Minutes” and The Washington Post that said Congress helped disarm the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
In the report, former DEA attorney Jonathan Novak criticized Rep. Tom Marino (R-Pennsylvania) and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee) for introducing the Controlled Substances Act and its regulations. He said the law, unanimously passed by Congress and signed by President Obama, weakened the agency’s ability to stop companies from distributing large quantities of opioids to suspect outlets, fueling abuse of the addictive drugs.
Manchin on Monday said he sent a letter to the White House demanding that Marino’s nomination be removed from consideration as the Trump administration’s “drug czar,” or leader of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
Manchin said in a statement that he was “horrified” by the investigation and “cannot believe” the Obama administration didn’t flag how harmful the bill would be for “our efforts to effectively fight the opioid epidemic.” No member of the House or Senate, including Manchin, voted against its passage.
As for Marino, Manchin said, “During the biggest public health crisis since HIV/AIDS, we need someone leading the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy who believes we must protect our people, not the pharmaceutical industry.”
[….continues…]
patd,
At times Joe’s an idiot. The damn bill passed by unanimous consent – Joe, along with the rest of the do-less congresspeople didn’t read, or didn’t understand that the bill weakened DEA’s ability to stop opioid shipments from drug manufacturers. Shame on all of them. And may Marino and Blackburn burn in an everlasting hell. The irony for Joe is that one of the two pharmacies that are being pointed at as key abusers is in WV. Are you kidding me? He didn’t know that opioids were a critical problem here? I guess he should visit more often.
Aw shucks SJ…you too
I think of Mr. and Mrs. Harvey Weinstein, and ponder my good fortune in marriage. (Actually, I don’t have to think of them. I’ve known I’ve had great, good fortune in marriage for a long, long time. My husband is a terrific match for me, a true counterpoint, and I’ve long told people that as far as the two people in our partnership, that “he is the nice one.”)
Marriage, to me, is a partnership, as well as an extension of family. “Some people” (as moron *45 might say) have told me that I don’t have a “family,” because we have had dogs (and one big, incredible, black cat) and no children. How very wrong they are, and after my response to them, probably agree with my assessment that my husband “is the nice one” of the two of us.
I don’t know how I got so lucky with my husband. He comes from a family of disappointments. At least, they’ve disappointed me. His mother boycotted our wedding because we wouldn’t let her pay for it/micromanage it into the ground. To quote my father, who could read a person’s character from two miles out, “You let her tell her what to do now, and you’ll spend the rest of your lives doing just that.” Well, we told her to keep her cheese squares on toothpicks impaled into cabbages posing as centerpieces and enjoyed the first five years of our marriage without her.
It could have been worse. I might have been Mrs. Harvey Weinstein.
The marriage I observed most closely was not inspirational. My brother has been married thirty years, my sister twenty-eight. I put up a front of looking for love before realizing, at age forty, that I have never aspired to matrimony. I applaud those who have strong harmonious marriages, but for myself, I have no regrets.
My sister, Sweetie’s brother, and I amassed a total of 139 years of marriage. I believe the secret formula to a happy marriage is fidelity, at least a little financial security, and agreed plans on how to raise kids and treat in-laws. A shared hobby is spice for the meal.