An interesting conversation last week touched on a long-standing debate I've had in my mind, and the issue is still unresolved. But first, a bit of background.
You may remember Michael's brother Eric, who got married last June. He had a month with his bride before being shipped off to Iraq for several months. He returned in February, and we found out last week that they are newly expecting. Great happiness and all that.
When we shared the good news with friends, it led to a discussion on marriage in wartime - specifically, what would you do if the love of your life was about to be shipped off to war?
On the one hand, waiting might sound prudent because you will have the chance to test your love for each other. You don't have to get trapped in limbo between feeling single and married. Being separated for such a length of time would put an incredible stress on the first year of marriage.
On the other hand, it might seem better to get married and have at least what time you can together. This line of thinking prevailed quite a bit in WWII.
Then someone mentioned a further point. Suppose you did get married, and the love of your life did in fact die. Would it affect your future eligibility to be a young heartbroken widow, as opposed to a young heartbroken fiancee?
And then we fell into further speculation. Suppose you did decide to get married first. Would you try to get pregnant before he leaves? On the one hand, if you're fairly certain of his safety, you might decide to wait, so as not to have him miss the child's arrival. On the other hand, if there's a significant chance that he will die, you might want to have a tangible reminder of him - pass on the family name, and all that - some bright hope to comfort you through the grief and loss. On the other hand again, much as you might want a reason to go on living, single motherhood is really hard - wouldn't a framed photograph do nearly as well?
I've very glad I've never had to face those tough choices. I'm grateful that Eric is home safe and sound, but now my young cousin Angela, who got married last Thanksgiving, is in much the same situation. Nothing I can do about it but pray for the collective safety of our brave troops over there.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Otherwise known as the Michael Lawrence Focht Fan Page.
4 comments:
I would hardly be an expert nor have I the eloquence to put my sentiments into words but as the saying goes, better to have loved and lost (regardless of marital status) than never to have loved at all"...the rest are details and perspective.
I agree, Janice. Being married myself, I'd much rather be married to Michael for as long as I have than not at all. But I don't know what I would have leaned toward in the hypothetical, before I met him. Maybe it's the sort of thing that can only be decided in real time.
I think if you didn't marry and he died, then you'd live with deep regret all your life.
As for eligibility, a widow with a child may pose some difficulty. But a young widow has always had a certain tragic glamour about her.
-- SJ
I think I would marry too, along the "better to have loved and lost" lines, but avoid having a baby -- not so much because of the difficulty of being a single parent (though my hat is off to them), but because I'd want my child to have both parents if possible. I guess it also depends on how dangerous the situation is that the guy is going.
Catherine in Atlanta
Post a Comment