I’m becoming increasingly frustrated by society’s inability to deal with the fact that my wife and I are one entity. It started a few years ago when the public library wouldn’t let my wife or I pick up each other’s book reservations. It’s now expanded to the point where we can’t do the simplest things for each other, like check with stores on transactions, or take things in for returns.
The other day I was out in the yard hauling the trailer out of the underbrush. Suddenly my wife is holding out the phone; she tried to inquire about the end of our car lease and was told they could only speak to the registered owner of the car.
The Bible talks about marriage this way: “the two shall be one flesh” a phrase that literally means indivisible, one unit, one entity. But today, primarily because of legal reasons, society increasingly treats married couples as separate people. We’ve gone from a presumption that a married couple has no secrets to the presumption that they have them in almost every area of life: real estate, automobiles, bank accounts, credit cards, library cards, etc.
It’s no wonder we have so many couples splitting up when society encourages them to cultivate separate lives on every side.
Comment by A. Zawadzki — May 2, 2008 @ 10:45 pm
Keep voting in liberals, they’ve brought us here. It is their intent and it is their laws that reward the break up of marriage and families while facilitating adversarial conflict in family law and the courts. You get what you reward and so we now have broken families in poverty, fatherless depressed children in trouble at school and the law. They are 5x more likely to commit suicide, 12x more likely to be in jail. Still want to vote Liberal/NDP ?
Comment by C Devine — May 10, 2008 @ 8:28 pm
I respect your perspective but mine is the opposite angle. I am a separate person! I am my own entity and my husband his own, but we are partners in marriage. I kept my name and my husband’s library book holds I just insist I be able to pick up and am often successful (rules change when people insist they be, lets remember some of our grandmothers and fellow women couldn’t vote at one point because they were considered their father or husband’s property or considered lesser than men: 1917 in Canada and 2005 in Kuwait, and in some parts of Malawi and other countries women are considered husband’s property under traditional practice–no wonder women and girls are so vulnerable to poverty and HIV/AIDS). When the telemarketers call for Mrs X (my husband’s name) I say, “there is no Mrs X” and politely excuse myself to help my husband prepare dinner. I enjoy being married and I think having some autonomy is equally healthy for married couples (regardless of gender) who chose not to become ‘one’ but ‘two’, sharing.
Comment by Brenda — July 1, 2008 @ 8:59 pm
I don’t think it’s a case of presuming that a married couple has secrets, rather it’s a case of presuming that they’re entitled to privacy the same as everyone else. Who am I to presume that your wife should know about your lease or your bank account? Maybe you’re separated or in the midst of divorcing - at that point your spouse has no right to know your business, and I would have no way of knowing this.
Comment by RJay — September 18, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
I whole heartedly agree with Brenda’s comments…if you don’t like it, the put both spouses’ names on everything legal. It would save a lot of grief down the road, especially if either party was to decease. Worry about the hair splitting after, when you need to.
That is the only solution I have been given to the problem.
Unfortunately, the Privacy Act made no provisions for the Bible my friend.
RJay
Comment by sasha — September 22, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
Exactly, it’s the matter of right to privacy, and I don’t see what’s wrong with that. Imagine if you will that an aused women has left her husband. He has no idea where she is, but easily tracks her down by being able to obtain information about where she does her regular milk and bread purchases by debit. One day he waits for her in front of that store, they get into an argument, and he shoots her. So, who’s at fault? Obviously, the man with the gun is at fault, but so is the bank who divulged sensitive information to the third party without considering consequences.