Reflecting On The Divorce And The Private Contract
In order for Mary and I to obtain a legal divorce, we had to accept three major things.
One, Mary and I had to determine that the definitions, developments, understandings, along with the assigned accountabilities, and responsibilities of the SCECS Accepted Marriage could no longer adequately function as the means to facilitate a reconciliation of our personalities; and the SCECS Accepted Marriage could not provide what we believed was needed to benefit the interests of our own personal relationship.
Two, Mary and I had to determine to divorce ourselves from the families and entities within SCECS who use their influence to provide specific definitions, developments, understandings, along with their preferred assignment of accountabilities, and responsibilities for the participants of the SCECS Accepted Marriage.
Three, Mary and I had to determine to divorce ourselves from the families and entities within SCECS who use the State to maintain governance over a formalized personal relationship through the license/certificate of the SCECS Accepted Marriage.
Importantly, when the State issued our divorce decree, the State did the following:
– permitted the above three things; and
formally and legally:
– terminated our SCECS Accepted Marriage;
– terminated our “husband and wife” status;
– returned Mary to an individual unmarried status; and
– returned me to an individual unmarried status.
Therefore, because our petition for divorce has been finalized, Mary and I will no longer refer to and/or operate from the assumptions and/or perspectives of the terms that are associated with the SCECS Accepted Marriage.
That means that Mary will no longer refer to me as her “husband” and I will no longer refer to myself as her “husband”.
Additionally, that means I will no longer refer to Mary as my “wife” and she will no longer refer to herself as my “wife”.
Therefore, Mary is an individual.
Therefore, I am an individual.
Legally, as separate individuals, working together, Mary and I are writing (have written) a Private Contract that offers us, as individuals, the ability to control and to govern the definitions, developments, understandings, accountabilities, and responsibilities of our personal relationship.
In other words, while Mary and I believe God’s providence led us to meet and be together in a personal relationship, we also believe that how the personal relationship is governed resides with humanity.
Knowing that, Mary and I have chosen to divorce ourselves from the SCECS Accepted Marriage in order to utilize the Private Contract.
Therefore, as individuals, we utilized our own human authority where it could be applied.
We used our authority to remove others from being the legal governing authority over our own personal relationship.
We used our authority to become the legal governing authority over our own personal relationship.
We did that in order to develop a Private Contract specifically designed by us, as individuals, to have governing influence over the direction and development of our personal relationship.
Personally, after all this research, contemplation, and actual divorce, it’s difficult to envision myself or Mary ever returning to the SCECS Accepted Marriage.
When within the SCECS Accepted Marriage, the license/certificate of the SCECS Accepted Marriage did not allow Mary or me to contribute directly to the governance of our personal relationship, except for a few limited sources like the prenuptial.
Therefore, the SCECS Accepted Marriage does not permit us to have direct legal influence, governance, and control over the definitions, developments, understandings, accountabilities, and responsibilities that directly affect our personal relationship.
For Mary and me, in obtaining the divorce, she and I found a way that works for us to reconcile our personalities and our differences, and provide a way to guide the development of our personal relationship.
We did that by obtaining a legal document that established a termination of one type of legal governance (the SCECS Accepted Marriage) in order to establish another type of legal governance (the Private Contract).
The Private Contract gives us the ability to govern directly our personal relationship, allowing us to formally and legally determine and direct the course of our personal relationship, where we provide our own definitions, developments, understandings, accountabilities, and responsibilities.
Yet, in the Private Contract, she retains her legal status as an individual, and I retain my legal status as an individual.
Importantly, in the Private Contract, Mary and I work together as private contractual partners to achieve our common goals, whether those goals are spiritual, economic, and/or personal.
As private contractual partners, for our personal relationship, we will be providing specific:
– definitions, developments, and understandings; and
– accountabilities, and responsibilities for each other.
As private contractual partners, for our personal relationship, we will have a formal and legal way to:
– establish a mutual direction of our personal relationship;
– maintain a mutual direction of our personal relationship;
– contract to each other our spiritual growth;
– contract to each other our personal growth;
– contract to each other our mutual need for fidelity;
– protect each other from financial uncertainties;
– provide each other with personal opportunities;
– provide each other with personal security;
– have an accountable means of mutual negotiated reciprocity; and
– establish a quid pro quo* personal relationship.
With those things in mind, I want to address two common assumptions about “marriage”. The first, I will call the wife-assumption. The second, I will call the husband-assumption.
A common assumption of “marriage” goes something like this: what’s hers is hers and what’s his is hers.
Some operate their personal relationship by that wife-assumption.
Sadly, that wife-assumption permits the “wife” to lay claim to the entire “marriage” where the “husband” is often left holding the bag, where she holds him accountable not only for her financial well-being, but whatever else she believes she needs, even if it’s a divorce and his financial support after the divorce.
That wife-assumption encourages and permits the “wife” to use a “husband” for all he’s worth, and if she wants, leave him with nothing.
That wife-assumption is only mutual, when the “husband” agrees to that wife-assumption.
A second common assumption of “marriage” permits a “husband” to use the “wife” in whatever capacity he believes is appropriate.
Some operate their personal relationship by that husband-assumption.
Sadly, that husband-assumption permits the “husband” to lay claim to the entire “marriage” where the “wife” is often doing whatever she can to benefit the “husband”, where he holds her accountable not only for his household well-being, but whatever else he believes he needs, even if it’s a divorce and taking everything from her in the divorce.
That husband-assumption encourages and permits the “husband” to use a “wife” for all she’s worth, and if he wants, leave her with nothing.
That husband-assumption is only mutual, when the “wife” agrees to that husband-assumption.
I simply stated what can be commonly observed.
However, it should be just as commonly observed that neither the wife-assumption nor the husband-assumption is healthy.
Therefore, even when people choose to be participants in the SCECS Accepted Marriage, they should discuss things and find ways of understanding what each other needs.
However, if/when the Private Contract is used, the Private Contract can specify formally the manner in which each partner contributes to the personal relationship, and how each partner benefits from the personal relationship.
If that is done, then the Private Contract can formally establish how each partner will give something in order to receive something, where each partner grants favor and advantage to the other partner(s) in exchange to receive favor and advantage from the other partner(s).
That is truly quid pro quo, where one partner not only has their back scratched, but that partner is also required to scratch the other partner’s back (or partners’ back), where each partner provides for the benefit of other partner(s) and the whole of the personal relationship.
In other words, through the formality of the Private Contract, either of those common assumptions can be removed, because each partner establishes, formally, what they as an individual are willing to contribute and give to the other partner(s), and formally establish what they want in exchange for their contribution to the personal relationship.
Therefore, whether male or female, specifying what one is willing to give/grant the other partner(s) is helpful and beneficial, because it formally removes assumptions, and formally establishes specifics about the personal relationship, providing not only the ability to provide and protect each other, but also to provide protection to each other from each other.
quid pro quo – means ‘something for something’ where a favor or advantage is either granted or expected in return for something; commonly expressed as: I’ll scratch your back if/when you scratch mine.