"T is for Turning"

My favorite concept from this week was “Turn Toward Each Other.”  I loved the story Dr. Gottman used from his own life:  

One day I overheard Julie grumbling softly as she unloaded the dryer.  I could easily have pretended not to notice.  But that grumble was a bid, a quiet one, but definitely a bid.  So I asked her what the matter was, and she said, “I don’t mind doing laundry, but I hate folding it!”  Well, I happen to like mindless tasks like folding shirts!  They give me a sense of accomplishment, sort of like going over streams of numbers in the lab.  So I turned toward my wife by taking over the folding.  I piled the laundry on the bed, turned on music featuring jazz composer Billy Evans and his magical piano, and I was in heaven.  Eventually Julie drifted into the room.  I knew she expected me to ask her for help, even though she hates folding laundry.  Instead, we both relaxed and enjoyed the music while I continued to fold.  Julie pointed out that it had been a long time since we’d been to our favorite local jazz club.  So we ended up heading there for dinner.  In the end, my turning toward that pile of laundry turned out to be very romantic for us.  

I appreciate how Gottman illustrates that something as simple as folding a load of laundry can lead to increased fondness and affection and a “very romantic” evening. 
Two main obstacles of “turning toward” are 1) wrapping up our “bids” in negative emotions and 2) allowing technology to distract us.  I am definitely guilty of the second obstacle, while I think my husband is most guilty of the first.  I am very heavily connected to technology in my volunteering, callings, and side jobs.  It is so easy for me to just “check out” and use technology as a distraction.  While I have valid reasons to be using the computer or phone or Internet, I use it as an excuse sometimes instead of “turning toward.”  I like the rule of thumb that if we turn off our phones at church or theaters, we could at least afford our spouses the same courtesy.  I need to work on this!  By following Gottman's flowchart, I can make sure that my choices are leading to "turning towards" instead of looping through negative or destructive behaviors.

The Gaps in the Map

I am completely fascinated by Love Maps and the chapter on fondness and admiration!  Reading about them reminded me of the Love Dare I posted about last week.  At first glance, I thought I was doing pretty well with my own personal Love Map.  I met my husband, Berek, when I was twelve.  TWELVE!  We started “going out” when I was 14 and he was 16.  (To be fair, I was not LDS and I was two years ahead in school, so he thought I was his age!)  We only dated for five months the summer before and first part of our Junior year, had a dramatic high school break-up, and didn’t date again until we married five years after high school graduation.  During that “time off,” though, we did stay in touch and reconnect every so often.  To say we know each other well is an understatement.  

“Take, for example, one of the major causes of marital dissatisfaction and divorce: the birth of the first baby.  Sixty-seven percent of couples in our newlywed study underwent a precipitous drop in marital satisfaction the first time they became parents.”

That’s where we are 14 years later.  When we married, we didn’t plan on having children for quite some time.  We thought maybe we’d wait five to seven years...maybe ten if work and travel was going well!  We unexpectedly got pregnant on our honeymoon and had a baby before we could even celebrate our first anniversary.  And the babies just kept coming!  We had four beautiful daughters in five years and added three more children in subsequent years.

I wouldn’t trade our babies for anything, of course, but they have certainly taken their toll on us!  We do have a strong marriage, but our children are involved in every piece of the social pie, my husband and I both have demanding callings, we do a lot of volunteer work...and our Love Map falls by the wayside.  I drove 93 miles today, but made 25 stops!  We are just too busy to reconnect the way we used to.

I can’t wait to play “The Love Map 20 Questions Game.”  Berek has been out of town all week and I have been so busy that we haven’t talked much beyond FaceTime during dinner and family prayer over the phone.  I feel like we’ll have high enough scores, but I do want to fill in some of the gaps in our map.  I’m thinking that for our five date nights for this course (by the way, is that not the coolest school assignment ever?!), I want to work through some of the quizzes and questions in this week’s reading assignments.

Love Lab & Love Dare

I first read of Gottman’s “love lab” a few years ago and was fascinated.  In short, the “love lab” is an apartment set up with cameras, computers, and other technology that not only observe, but give biophysical information on couples staying there.  Using this information, Dr. Gottman says he can predict potential divorces with over 90% accuracy.  It didn’t originally seem possible that they could predict divorce with such accuracy and in such a short amount of time! 

Having read more about Gottman’s theories and letting them "marinate" over the time, I feel like it actually is possible to make such a forecast, especially having identified factors for success and the biggest one:  FRIENDSHIP.  One of the reasons I feel this is true is because of my own wonderful marriage.  My husband and I will only be celebrating 14 years of marriage this week, but I met him when I was only twelve.  We have known each other a long time and have a deep and abiding friendship.  At the end of the day, when all of the stressors (read: seven kids!) are removed, my husband and I are such good friends and like each other so much that it helps us ride the waves.

SOUND RELATIONSHIP HOUSE:


FOUR HORSEMEN:
Criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling are given by Gottman as "certain kinds of negativity so lethal to a relationship, if allowed to run rampant."

THE LOVE DARE:  I was so excited when I saw clips from "Fireproof" were included in this week's reading/viewing!  One of my favorite tools in my marriage and something I recommend to pretty much everyone is "The Love Dare."  Whenever I feel like our marriage could use some refreshing or if I feel like I am in a rut of negative behavior, I start the 40-day dare.  I haven't ever made it all of the way through because, honestly, just a couple of days jump-starts me enough to get back on track.  I am including an attachment of the dares for people to look at.  Usually, just the first four days are more than enough to reset my mindset and even on the first day, my husband's reactions to me are kinder and gentler than they might have been previously.  Don't get me wrong, we have a great marriage!  But "The Love Dare" is kind of like my own private renewal of my marital vows and covenants and they certainly help knock The Four Horsemen, well, off of their horses!  

Covenant marriages versus contractual marriages

1.  I loved Elder Bruce C. Hafen’s article “Covenant Marriage.”  I’ve mentioned before that as Latter-day Saints we believe that our marriages are different from those of our non-LDS friends and neighbors.  I think Elder Hafen explains that far better than I can!   In previous classes I’ve taken towards a degree in Marriage and Family Studies, I learned the ramifications of “shacking up,” or living together before marriage.  While a contractual marriage is surely better than living together outside the bonds of marriage, a covenant marriage is yet another step up.  A contractual marriage can be fairly easy to divorce from.  Sure, there might be custody arrangements to work out and household items to divide, but a covenant marriage has farther-reaching ramifications.  To enter into a covenant marriage, you have to be willing to submit yourself fully to the relationship.  As a member of our stake presidency recently said, “Getting married requires the proper amount of naivete and hormones.”  You don’t always know what you’re getting into when you marry.  My husband and I have a great marriage and we were very in love when we married, but where we stand now is a very different place than where we started.  We couldn’t have anticipated the sadness, sickness, and other hurdles that we would face.  

2.  I’ve always loved that saying that marriage isn’t 50-50, it’s 100-100.  Elder Hafen uses this same idea, but attributes each percentage to a type of marriage.  It is selfish to say that each spouse must pull half of the weight in the relationship.  This made me think of family and friends I know who have kept separate banks accounts when they married.  Even my sister and her husband have their own bank accounts and each pay 50% of the bills.  This seems so silly to me!  What happens if someone gets paid less one month?  Or loses their job?  Do you start keeping a tab for your spouse?  

Marriage is best lived 100-100.  Each party should give their very best, aiming for perfection.  Since none of us are perfect, we will inevitably fall short.  But when we do, we can help compensate for one another to reach that goal of 100%.  If my 80% is added to my husband’s 95%, then hooray! Together we surpass 100%!  If we each aim to reach 50% and fall short, we can never attain that perfect score.

3.  During our wedding reception, a family friend approached me and my husband and sketched out a little triangle on his placecard.  I have saved that card for fourteen years (next week!) and will never forget his explanation.  Elder David A. Bednar illustrated my friend’s same idea in “Marriage is Essential to His Eternal Plan.”  Elder Bednar says, “The Lord Jesus Christ is the focal point in a covenant marriage relationship.”  He goes on to explain that we should imagine marriage as being a triangle with the husband and wife separated at the two bottom corners and with Jesus Christ at the top corner.  As we work to grow closer to Jesus Christ, we will naturally start to slide closer to our spouse.  “As a husband and wife are each drawn to the Lord, as they learn to serve and cherish one another, as they share life experiences and grow together and become one, and as they are blessed through the uniting of their distinctive natures, they begin to realize the fulfillment that our Heavenly Father desires for His children.”

4.  As I’ve pondered this week how I can make sure my marriage is a covenant marriage and not a contract marriage, I kept coming back to one thought.  My husband and I were sealed in the temple, so I have the practical part of a covenant marriage “checked off,” so to speak.  We are pretty good about doing things like praying together, reading the scriptures together, and so on.  But when I thought about truly having a marriage where we are bonded and trying to grow closer to one another, I thought we must make sure we don’t slip into a marriage of convenience, or a contractual marriage. Elder Bednar explained this by saying, “Husbands and wives need time together to fortify themselves and their homes against the attacks of the adversary.”  

Man, that hit me like a ton of bricks!  I love my husband.  Dearly.  I’ve known him since I was twelve, we have seven lovely children, and we have built a beautiful home and life together.  But life can be hard.  We have a lot on our plates and stress can creep in any chance we let it.  Just due to our family dynamics, my husband and I don’t get much time together, just the two of us.  Of course date night is always fun, but Elder Bednar implies that this is crucial to strengthening our families, especially against outside forces.  I need to make sure that my husband and I fortify our marriage by having that stress-free (or at least less-stressful!) time together to improve ourselves as a marital unit - a covenanted marital unit.  If we are strong as a couple, we can better serve our family.  “They marry to give and grow, bound by covenants to each other, to the community, and to God.”  

Obergefell v Hodges

I was terrified to read Obergefell v Hodges this week, but I ended up finding it fascinating!  I have always understood the LDS Church's moral arguments against gay marriage, but hadn't fully explored the legal arguments against it.  This reading really opened my eyes, especially when I focused in on the dissenting opinions.  

But this Court is not a legislature.  Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us.  Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.  The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.”  (p. 41)

In this excerpt, Justice Roberts reminds the public of the purpose of the Supreme Court of the United States.  The Supreme Court was founded, in part, to interpret the United States Constitution.  In this function, they can look at the Fourteenth Amendment and determine what our Founding Fathers intended in drafting and approving it.  The Supreme Court is not supposed to decide what they personally feel is good or appropriate in society and then project those beliefs in their rulings.  

Judges are selected precisely for their skill as lawyers; whether they reflect the policy views of a particular constituency is not (or should not be) relevant.  Not surprisingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America.  Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School.  Four of the nine are natives of New York City.  Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States.  Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between.  Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count).  Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination.  The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage.  But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not.  And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.  (p. 73-74)

I love this argument Justice Scalia makes!  It’s so easy to get caught up with “non-believers” when discussing gay marriage because we feel so passionately about our religions and faith.  When you take a step back and look at the legalities of Obergefell v Hodges, I feel it’s much easier to form a sound argument.  Not everyone believes the same as I do in terms of spirituality and such, but arguing as Justice Roberts did for the true purpose of the Supreme Court or as Justice Scalia does here levels the playing field.  The last line quoted above is incredibly powerful.  

This Court’s precedents have repeatedly described marriage in ways that are consistent only with its traditional meaning...As the majority notes, some aspects of marriage have changed over time.  Arranged marriages have largely given way to pairings based on romantic love.  States have replaced coverture, the doctrine by which a married man and woman became a single legal entity, with laws that respect each participant’s separate status.  The majority observes that these developments “were not mere superficial changes” in marriage, but rather “worked deep transformations in its structure.”  They did not, however, work any transformation in the core structure of marriage as the union between a man and a woman.  (p. 46-7)

Marriage has long been intended as a way to bring together two worlds and to provide a safe and secure environment in which to bring forth children.  Genesis 2:24 reads, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”  However, marriage has changed significantly in our society over the years.  As Latter-day Saints, we already believe that our marriages have a higher purpose and are ordained of God and I think most Christians feel the same about their marriages when they are performed in a church or by a pastor or someone with ecclesiastical authority.  Anyone can meet someone and hours later run down to the courthouse to be legally married, but that union does not have the same power as, say, an LDS sealing.  For this reason, I believe marriage should be a religious institution, where only churches can perform a marriage.  Everyone else can still enter into a civil union, which alleviates churches of some of the legal issues while still providing legal benefits of a union to the public.  

This section also reminded me of Elder Russell M. Nelson’s address where he said, “The greatest guardians of any and all virtues are marriage and family.  This is particularly the case with the virtues of chastity and fidelity in marriage, both of which are required to create enduring and fully rewarding marriage partnerships and family relationships.”  I feel this is the truest purpose of marriage, to perpetuate our greatest virtues.