I'm guessing I must already know the answer to this, but I'll ask anyhow.

How long is long enough to wait to date?

I've been separated from my husband since March of '08. We filed in June saying we were separated in NOvember of '07 (in our state, you are legally separated if not sleeping together in the same room which was the case). We thought the divorce would just go through and it is STILL stuck in court but will supposedly go thru sometime this month.

I'm feeling like I'd be ready to date someone maybe in a couple of months if I met the right guy.

I think my stbx has already gone on a date but I haven't tried to get too much info out of him about that so I'm not sure.

He said he considered me his ex wife the minute I filed.

I do confess that I do still feel married. But recently, when talking to him about the papers being stuck in court over some parenting class they ended up waiving, well, I joked that it wouldn't be so bad to just be stuck together and maybe it was a sign...didn't even get a response.

THe reason I AM the one who filed, was because he said that he saw no other possible outcome for us and had nothing left to say to me. THere was no cheating. None of that. But he sure loved drinking. Still does. But he does not consider himself as someone who needs help. He does not want to change or work on a relationship. Says it's too much work.

So, anyhow, sigh...

I guess I must not be ready to date.

Replies, comments, welcome...

anyone coming to kick me while I"m down, please resist your urges as I'm already quite sad over all of this...my life is a mess.

And I was hoping a new love could help.

You are still married to him so you shouldn't date period.

As to how long... The best indicator when you are ready is when dating is not a priority at all. When you are totally comfortable with your life.

A good rule of thumb is 1 year of healing for every 5 years of marraige.

If he is a drinker, and not willing to change, then, unfortunately, this seperation is for the best.

My advice would be to look around and find some groups you'd be interested in joining - bowling, book club, horseback riding clases, college classes, church...expands your mind or your body, fun, and a great place to meet people - as friends. Look for friends right now, maybe even a group of people you can hang out with.

Hey PR. A new love is like putting a band aid on an infected cut. It seems to help, but really doesn't do any good. Eventually, the band aid comes off, and the infection is still there.

It's only been six months, and it's normal for your life to be a mess right now. We've all been there.

Once your life doesn't feel like it's a mess, you'll be in a good position to chose a new love wisely. You'll be okay.

My ex filed (reason for wanting to divorce is that his career comes first) in June of 2005. We were together since 1986. I am 41 years old, a professional woman with her own great career, two children. He has been living overseas since 2006.

The divorce is taking forever, because now he wants my financial support, after finding out it wasn't my fault his career wasn't skyrocketing.

Do you think that I should not be dating because I'm still married to this man?

I don't think so. I could possibly be married to him for another ten years at the rate this is going. My lawyer's fees are about $6000 per month and I'm hoping he runs out of money before I do. That way, he'll just let me go.

Forget about your ex and start having some fun to get your mind on the rest of your life. Get your own life in order and don't wait for something to happen. Make something exciting happen for yourself.

For me the fact that the divorce hasn't gone through is just a technicality...we're done and it's simply a matter of whether the state still believes we're married (semantics in my book).

I met someone and ended up really enjoying her company...we've been dating for a few weeks. I'm not really concerned whether anyone here feels it's right...I do and it makes me happy.

This is an individual choice...do you feel like you can handle a relationship? I think that's the only measure.

BTW: I was married for 16 years and never even kissed another woman.

Good luck to all of you.

Do not date until you are divorced. Then you need to grieve the loss of the marriage for one year before you are ready to date.

It eliminates many problems.

Can someone explain to me from a religious point of view why a divorce certificate issued by a state, city hall or courthouse (depending on your jurisdiction) is the all-empowering document that makes you not married? I'm not trying to be flip - I'm just trying to educate myself.

From my personal perspective, I am not married. In my jurisdiction, the LSA is what carries the legal weight regarding everything you Americans consider part of the divorce. The actual divorce certificate is only required to get remarried. It is not required to be common law. My W(stb)XH is living in common law with OW. They pay taxes as though they are married. She is listed as his wife on his life insurance, benefits and all other legal documents. She has every right and responsibility as a married wife does. I do not. I am the eX in the eyes of the law and he has no responsibility to me outside of what's in the LSA, nor I to him. He is not a bigot. This is how it is normally done here. Now, if they wanted to get married, either in a church or by the JP, he would require a divorce certificate. He doesn't need my agreement to get one - he can get it himself. They will send me a copy in the mail. They may or may not inform me if/when he files and there would be nothing I could do to stop it. I refer to him on this board as "stbx" but there is nothing "soon to be". It might never happen at all.

So, for the last time, if I'm still married and can't date - WTF????

I don't know. I filed almost a year ago, lived in torture with him in the same household for 9 months, seeing a counselor the whole time to get through the process, and thought I had worked through my feelings and come to some healing and acceptance. Even the first month I was out of the house, I was excited and felt ready to start a new life.

Now, suddenly, a new wave of emotion and reality is setting in. I am having nightmares about him, waking up not knowing what is reality for a split second, and feeling a lot of unspecified pain. I know how horribly sick the whole thing was, and how damaged he is (and me!), and I do not intend to try to go back. Still, it hurts! I have lost an ideal, a dream, a vision I was fully vested in when I made the choice to marry. Grief is odd and can manifest in many ways and not always in a linear fashion.

Signing that piece of paper, making it final, even if you think you are completely done and accept it is reality, has an impact. You just won't know exactly how it will affect you. Suddenly I am scared, mistrustful of men, and back to a stage of denial and anger. And here I was sure I was well into acceptance! I need time. It is most fair to myself, my child, and to anyone I might someday date! It is far better, in my opinion, to process and learn what you need to before trying to move on into something else. Why a hurry? It is when there is no "need" to find someone that you have the best chance at making a healthy choice, at least that is what I understand.

That's the safe bet, but do what your conscience allows. It's just my opinion based on my experience so far, and an anecdote to consider if you are riding the fence on it.

So if you and he got back together would you still be married?

Why don't YOU file for divorce if you want to start dating again?

I think you missed the point of the post...you may want to reread it.

No I think you might have missed the point and the person I was responding to.

We won't get back together.

What for? I'm not getting married. I may be a religious skeptic, but I still hold the clergy who married me in higher regard than the pimply-faced intern making $10 an hour with a rubber stamp and a Xerox machine who will ultimately issue the divorce. The church doesn't issue divorce.

(and if truth be told I'm extracting my pound of flesh by leaving it to him - I did and paid for the LSA, he can do this)

Nobody has answered my question - what exactly is the religious argument for this?

TAB

"She is listed as his wife on his life insurance, benefits and all other legal documents. She has every right and responsibility as a married wife does. I do not. I am the eX in the eyes of the law and he has no responsibility to me outside of what's in the LSA, nor I to him."

Usually unless the divorce takes place you remain the legal spouse. Then if the husband dies and does not leave a will you are entitled to a share or his whole estate. Works the same way for the husband.

Until the divorce takes place there are many legal entanglements. Such as time to bury the bum/husband. You because your are still married may have sole say on the funeral arraignments.

I don't think the law will allow two women simultaneously to have the rights of a wife to the same man. Yes some jurisdictions allow Common Law Wife status. I have never heard where a husband can have or a woman can claim CLW status when there still is an existing wife drawing breath.

Next why do you speak and answer questions as a politician?

He is your ex.

How is he your ex you are still married?

"So, for the last time, if I'm still married and can't date - WTF????"

'So if you and he got back together would you still be married?'

"We won't get back together."

Your were not asked if you would get back together, but would you still be married.

You give a Non answer as a politician would.

"What for? I'm not getting married. I may be a religious skeptic, but I still hold the clergy who married me in higher regard than the pimply-faced intern making $10 an hour with a rubber stamp and a Xerox machine who will ultimately issue the divorce. The church doesn't issue divorce."

If one holds there religion higher than civil authority that is their decision.

To insult government workers on a personal level does not make their personal point valid. The Church doesn't issue divorce. So?

We live in a society where civil and religious authority overlap.

One can get a civil marriage.

Society and the court recognize it. The Church does not.

One can get married by their Church.

The Church, society, and the court recognize it.

One can get divorced by the court.

Society recognizes the divorce. The Church does not.

The Church issues annulments.



"What for? I'm not getting married."

What was the point of this statement? Was it that one can sleep around and it will be ok because one will not be marrying anyone that they sleep with.

If so doesn't this admit that you still consider yourself married in the eyes of the law?

Why do you use the higher authority of the Church to say they don't give divorces as your point to justify that you don't have to get a divorce from the court?

But, then why do you ignore the Church's authority that you can not date and would be committing adultery if you dated while still married?

Well-if you are a religious skeptic, than the religious reasons aren't necessarily going to have much influence on your choice because they are based on one's personal beliefs and understanding of Biblical teachings. Therefore, it isn't the divorce decree that matters, it's God's view of the marriage covenant and divorce that matters. (It's a "God's law vs. man's law" sort of thing)
But, it's still a good question so I'll give it a shot:

In Genesis marriage is described as being created by God and the final statement after the description of how a man and woman are brought into marriage by God is: "What God has joined together, let no one tear asunder." In Malachi, the prophet tells the nation of Israel that their prayers are not being answered because they have forsaken "the wife of their youth" and that God is the "accuser" of their breaking of this covenant with Him. In Hebrew, the term accuser means the witness to the crime. In essence, this says that even with a divorce decree-the one who has broken the covenant is still held to it by God. So, it actually goes beyond man's law. The consequences of this also go beyond the divorce decree as well.

In Matthew, Jesus explains to the religious leaders that divorce was given to the people of Israel by Moses because the people's hearts were hard towards God. He then clarifies that the only acceptable reason for divorce in God's eyes is infidelity.

In Ephesians, Paul tells believing spouses to stay with their unbelieving spouse if the unbeliever wants to stay married.

So, it isn't really the civil piece of paper that is important for those that hold these religious convictions. It is the desire of at least one of the marriage partners to allow for the other to come back to the covenant and also come back to God, which for those with religious convictions is a much bigger restoration than just the marriage. Repentance and restoration are big themes in the Bible and reasons for rejoicing (lots of parables in the gospels tell about even the angels in heaven rejoicing when a "lost" one returns).

There are even reasons a non-religious person may choose to wait for a divorce decree. There are financial and legal issues and also parenting and/or child support or spousal maintenance issues that could be complicated if either spouse is in a relationship with someone else before the marriage is formally dissolved.

Also, there are possible relational complications. Often when people get involved in relationships too quickly after a divorce, they haven't taken the time to really recover from the marriage/divorce and aren't ready for a new relationship. Rebound relationships are a real possibility. That's why most therapists suggest a waiting period-sometimes 1 year for every 5 years of marriage, or two years at least etc. And this advice isn't from "religious" counselors. It's from studies of those who do divorce recovery counseling.

This is a bit of an overview, but I hope it helps.

Thanks Johnstwin. That does shed a lot of light on it. So what I understand (and correct me if I'm wrong), according to the strictest of religious beliefs (Christian or Judeo-Christian?), one should stay faithful to one's spouse, even if they leave - with the only possible exception of adultery? So when adultery has occured, is anything granted by the church? Any church (perhaps someone know the customs of other relgions)? This part I'm not clear on.

As for these other things:

This I fully understand. However, there are some jurisdictions where these issues are not part of the divorce, but rather the legal separation (or perhaps even something else). This is the case for me. This process was completed a year and a half ago.

I believe this was more in line with what the original poster was asking about. It's also the least concrete in that everyone heals at their own pace, and in some cases the damages is greater than others. Other than gathering information, an anonymous internet web forum is probably the worst place to ask advise on this - better to talk to your IC or someone who knows you well and knows your circumstances.

tabby

Were my questions too hard?

Tabby - to answer your question.

Jesus instructed us to be under civil authority.

So as long as there are biblibal reasons for divorce, the bible sanctions it and you would get that pimply faced youth to do the civil administrations thing and grant you a divorce.

The unlikleyhood/impossibility of your WH's return is totally beside the point I was making as you well know.

How bout answering the questions TheRoad posed for you?

Sorry Road, my browser skipped ahead to the next one and I completely missed this. I'll do my best.


Perhaps in the US. Not here. As common law spouse, she gets it. We can't even sue each other's estate - it's part of our LSA. Again, the difference being that all of those things are settled in the LSA - this is the part you go to court for, not the divorce. The divorce can actually take place before the LSA. This only happens if you go to court AND one of you wants to get married - they grant the divorce to allow that, then continue the fight over assets, custody, CS etc. The divorce doesn't address any of these things at all. It is simply part of your next marriage license.
If he dies while still living with her, she has the responsibility and say in this regard. If they break up but were never married, and he and I were never divorced, and he dies alone (say there was no other family), they can come after me (if they discover I exist) to pay, but my LSA is enough to protect me from that.

They don't consider me a "wife". I have no rights or responsibilities to him. The LSA clearly states that. In the eyes of the law he is not married. However, he is not free to marry until he gets that piece of paper.

I didn't realize I sound that way. I do work for the government so perhaps that's they way I'm used to writing.

This is where I think the semantics get confusing. I don't know why it is the way it is here. Most likely somebody thought it would save money. Once upon a time you could get legal aid for this stuff but now you can't. You can, however, write your own LSA, have it signed and witnessed at city hall for $50 and it becomes a legal document. This adds a whole new dimention to no-fault divorce (don't get me started) but it also allows you to get a better settlement.

Sorry, I didn't mean to. I suppose we would be - in the sense that he lives with OW and is legally common law. If he lived with me in a common law arrangement, but we still had a marriage certificate and no divorce, then I doubt any official would ask if anything happened in between.

My point being that many of those advocating no dating until divorce do so on religious grounds. I have no problem with that, execpt that divorce seems to occur outside religion - even under circumstances where the church permits divorce (adultery).

My country has done a far better job of separating church and state. We see much less of that here. I did live in the US for 3 years so I understand this viewpoint.

Same here.

Samehere


Okay, now this actually answers part of my original question.


I'm not catholic, the church I was raised in never spoke of annulments. But from what I understand (based on popular media so it's probably crap) is that an annulment is some sort of statement that the marriage never existed. How does that work in a case where the marriage was long term, with children, and then destroyed by adultery?

Just because one has skepticism regarding religion does not mean they don't have certain moral standards. I don't need a divorce to maintain a respectable "non-married" status in my society. I don't have the religious convictions many here have and don't feel bound to my X. However, I do have a code of ethics I live by and sleeping around isn't part of it.

I don't believe our choices are either (1) believe yourself to be married and remain faithful to your XS and (2) sleep with everything that breaths. If that's what you are asking, I misunderstood.

I am not using the higher authority of the church. I am just wondering why those who truly are believers and obey the laws of the church for every other aspect - including the recognition of marriage in the first place, put so much weight on a document issued by a civil servant.

My religious beliefs are somewhat complicated and I tend to be very skeptical, particularly with regards to organized religion. To summarize without openning too much further debate, I was raised Christian (protestant) and associate with that the most. I believe in Christ's teachings and try to live like he lived - by being kind to others, by tolerating others differences, by reaching out and helping others and so on. But the church as an organization is an abomination of those teachings and I don't feel bound to their rules at all. Please don't begin a debate on this - I know how these turn out on this board. My religious views are very personal and part of them is not pushing them on others.