The welcome death of 'Until Death Do Us Part'

It’s a classic line - THE classic line, in fact - that defines the fairy tale ending of countless love stories: “Until death do us part”. But as happy-ever-after marriages become ever more fantastical (and ever less realistic) I think the time has come to accept the truth that “until death do us part” has come to an end - and perhaps that’s a good thing.

Back in the 1500s when “‘til death do us part” was widely adopted into the marriage vows, the union of two people was seen as a sacred contract. One made under god and in front of friends and family. Sacred or otherwise, however, it was - and is - still a contract. An agreement. One largely made for logistic reasons.

Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

For centuries, people married more often to expand their wealth than to create a stable home or family. In fact, women often married because they literally had no other way to secure a future for themselves. They couldn’t have their own money, they couldn’t vote, they couldn’t own property… they couldn’t even hold onto any inheritances that were meant for them from fathers or deceased husbands. The “sacred” union of marriage was, in truth, often simply a means to an end, thinly veiled as a god-blessed union born from love.

Interestingly, the evolution of marriage into a fairy tale of everlasting love has arguably done far more harm than good. A truth evidenced by the number of divorces, unfaithful partners, and generally unhappy marriages. In fact, reality suggests that the number of happy, traditional marriages that have persisted from the moment the vows were uttered until one partner or the other is laid to rest, is minimal (at best).

Of course this is certainly unwelcome news to the thousands of couples each year that eagerly await their wedding day. It’s perhaps even less welcome news to the innumerable among us that - even being disbelievers in the institution itself - wish the fairy tale could be true for us.

The problem, however, is not in the commitment nor the institution of marriage itself. There are loads of very happy couples that will never be married, and loads of married couples that are happy - for now. The problem isn’t even the contractual nature of marriage. In fact, wedding vows are not even necessary in most legal jurisdictions.

The problem, I believe, with “until death do us part” is the projection of the relationship into the future.

First of all, if we’re going to marry for love, transforming it into a transactional contract strikes me as more than a little problematic. A contract that says you now owe me certain things because you love me. This reality sets up a scenario in which the one truly pure, sacred thing that’s allowed in the human experience is contaminated by a piece of paper with a governmental stamp on it.

But the more damaging element of the marriage contract is the “always” part.

Love is a force, an energy, an element of god. It is meant to move and change, evolve and grow, die and be reborn. Love is not a static state, nor a guarantee. Real love takes work and commitment and communication and vulnerability and honesty and countless other efforts. Promising - or even hoping - that it will always exist in more or less the same way for decades is - in many ways - diminishing it’s dynamism.

Yes, the love can persevere. We can even commit to the effort required to see that it does. But I think we also have to make room for it to change.

In my last years as a teenager, my boyfriend of four years and I found ourselves pregnant. He would have married me. In fact, if he would have asked the year before I got pregnant, I would have said yes. Now, 24 years later, I’m so grateful I didn’t marry that man.

Several years after I gave that child up for adoption, I did, in fact, get married. And the day after the wedding that man utterly transformed into someone I didn’t recognize. We divorced two years later and I’m so grateful I didn’t adhere to “until death do us part.”

Half a decade after that I found myself deeply in love - with an alcoholic. It lasted 9 years before I realized that even deep, beautiful love does not necessarily mean a healthy, successful relationship.

I’m not saying these were terrible men. I’m saying that regardless of how wonderful they were or weren’t, I grew and changed. My love for them persists - and probably always will - but it is not the same love that I had for them when I was 19 or 22 or 30. If I had promised to stay in those relationships and kept that promise, I would not be where I am today: happier than I’ve ever been and two years into a stable relationship with a wonderful man.

Of course you can say that I simply made poor decisions or had back luck in love. In fact, I’d agree with you. A palm reader once used those very words “unlucky in love” to describe my romantic destiny. But regardless of my personal experiences, the numbers don’t lie: happy, successful, “forever” relationships are the marginal anomaly. Not the norm.

Promising to love someone in essentially the same way for the rest of our lives is making a statement with which most of us can’t possibly comply. Even in financial contracts there’s an “out”. We may make a promise to pay a certain amount of money every month - but how we get that money is entirely up to us. We may make a contract to do a certain job for a certain amount of time - but that commitment ends, eventually. Not to mention the fact that many contracts have clauses that allow for unforeseen circumstances. But marriage - perhaps the most hefty commitment of all - offers no such thing.

What if one partner develops a gambling problem or becomes a heroin addict? What if they’re hit by a bus and survive, but lose most of their mental capacity? In these kinds of situations, wouldn’t it be more loving to both parties if care was secured for the one that needed it and the other was free to find a more suitable partner?

Or, what if, years into the relationship, one partner decides they do, in fact, want children? Wouldn’t it be more loving to both partners - and the theoretic children - if the adults were free to find partners that aligned better with their changing needs?

I absolutely understand that for some people, the lifetime commitment to the romantic love in a relationship with a specific person is not only possible, it’s essential. And there’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, I work as a relationship coach to help people make their committed relationships utterly blissful and functional because I believe it’s possible. But / and / also - it requires honoring the needs of both partners and accepting that those might change.

I believe that we could all have happier relationships if we allowed them to be more in the present, and provided space for them to change. What if we altered our marriage vows to be “until unhappiness do us part”? I know, I know, I can almost hear the critics of this theory now: If they can just walk away, how will they be forced to grow?

But is “forcing” them to grow really what we want?

Honestly, I grew far more in my deeply loving relationship in which we weren’t married. Because I knew the healthiest version of myself would allow the most space for the love in the relationship to win out over the drinking. I held onto that hope and I worked on myself because I WANTED the relationship to work - regardless of the commitment (or lack thereof). I grew because I WANTED TO GROW. I could have stayed in the unhappy relationship and continued to grow, but I decided I could grow either way. And I’d rather do it in a happy relationship or even alone, than in an unhappy one.

Simply put, if a partner doesn’t want to grow they very likely won’t - whether or not they are in a marriage. And if they do want to grow, they will likely do that work either way as well. What’s more, do we really want unhappy partners to stay with us - even if it is growth inspiring - out of obligation? Isn’t that also saying we actually want them to be unhappy? Is that love?

How many people would enjoy dramatically more joyful lives if they weren’t just trying to be “ok” in unhappy relationships? Wouldn’t that mean that we’d have a lot more joyful people in our world? Wouldn’t that also mean a more joyful world?

What if we committed to ourselves; our growth and our happiness first? What if we let romantic relationships add to our lives… until they didn’t? We would remain committed to working on ourselves and the relationship because we really loved having that person in our life. And, when and if we didn’t love having the relationship or the person, we could love each other enough to let it (and them) go?

I truly believe that we would actually have happier and more committed relationships if we intentionally held more space for the relationship to end - before the grave. We’d be honoring the reality and purity of love in a more profound and authentic way if we were perpetually prepared to let the other person go.

In fact, I think that’s a big reason why I’m two years into the most successful relationship I’ve ever had. Neither of us is committed to the long haul. We’re committed to each other’s happiness and success - and if we stop being happy together, we’ll stop being together. We willfully opted out of the pink cloud of fantasy relationships and simply acknowledged that it’s more likely than not that we won’t last. So we’re just enjoying the time and connection we do have, for as long as it’s good for both of us.

I know, I know, it’s sad to leave the pink cloud of the fairy tale behind. It can even feel like we aren’t fully immersing ourselves in the love if we aren’t fully invested in a shared, imagined future. But in reality, that’s just not true. Understanding and accepting that the relationship could end is not in any way diminishing the love we have in the moment - in fact, there’s a strong argument to be made that we love harder and deeper because we know it will end. Which, ironically, creates even more possibility for the relationship to beat the odds and survive.

Ultimately, the fairy tale was just that - a fairy tale. A fantasy we all want to cling to because once in awhile, it does come true. The thing is, we can’t know that it will, for us, this time and with this person. In reality, it’s entirely possible that a future version of ourselves may not even want it to. It’s entirely possible that we will look back on this moment in our lives with this person and think of it fondly, even as we look around and realize we’re happier than we ever could have imagined with someone else - or alone.

Yes, we might just make it until death do us part. But I think we have to celebrate the reality that we might not - and that might actually make the relationship even more fulfilling and long lasting.