Yesterday's post left off contemplating what a couple would do when faced with new, "unconditional love" while already married with children. As The New York Times puts it, "What happens when love comes at the wrong time?" That question is what has split critics' views of a New York couple's ultimate decision to divorce their prior spouses in order to marry each other.
It is because of others' criticism regarding the couple's divorces and marriage that they had their story published in the "Vows" section of The New York Times. They wanted the chance to defend what they believe was a decision based on the need to live honestly and happily.
No matter what, says the couple, pain was inevitable for those involved, and staying married would have left four people caught up in dishonest marriages - even though emotional cheating had never escalated to physical infidelity. They also want their children to see their parents in love, and they plan on working hard to ensure that their kids get through this transition okay.
More than debating the propriety of the couple's decision, many have debated whether it was crossing another line for the newlyweds to have their story published in the paper. Because neither of the individuals' exes nor children have commented on the story or the experience, it is hard to judge how hurtful the article might have been for them to read or hear about.
What do you think? If someone falls in love after already being married, is it wrong for them to seek happiness through a divorce and then a new marriage? Or does that defeat the purpose of exchanging wedding vows? Is that decision harmful to the best interests of the children involved? What should this couple have done in your opinion?
The New York Times: "Carol Anne Riddell and John Partilla," Devan Sipher, 17 Dec. 2010