COMMENTS: 34
Broken Military Marriages: Another Casualty of War
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Sex & Relationships headlines via email.
More than 13,000 military marriages ended last year, and mine came dangerously close to becoming one of them, but it wasn’t because of some gays getting hitched. Military marriages are at increasingly high risk of failure, and combat is the cause.
Most of the boots on the ground in Iraq are worn by Marines, active duty Army, or Army National Guard. They have served the most and longest deployments, seen the most combat, and suffered the most injuries, both physical and psychological. In 2008, the active-duty Army and Marines also had a higher percentage of failed marriages than the Navy or Air Force, whose rates held steady or decreased slightly.
Divorce rates for women in the Army or Marines were nearly three times that of their male counterparts, which speaks volumes about the effect of war on women, as well as the gender roles, societal expectations, and resiliency of their husbands. The fact that the Veterans Administration has just a handful of gender-specific treatment programs for women, and there’s been scant attention, research, and support for women veterans speaks for itself.
A study published in Armed Forces & Society revealed that male combat veterans were 62 percent more likely than civilian males to have at least one failed marriage. In 2006, Kansas State University professor Walter Schumm surveyed 337 soldiers at Fort Riley who had recently returned from Iraq. 6.1 percent said they would probably divorce, and 12.2 percent indicated that they would be divorcing. By comparison, two to four percent of civilian marriages end in divorce each year.
Due to the unprecedented deployments of citizen soldiers and the unique challenges faced by the families they leave behind, divorce rates among Guard and Reservists may be even higher than active duty. The military doesn’t monitor the divorce rates of citizen soldiers, who are more likely than active duty troops to be married, and nearly twice as likely to have combat-related stress. According to SOFAR (Strategic Outreach to Families of All Reservists), "20 percent of returned married troops are planning a divorce, [and] problems in relationships in families are four times higher after … deployment."
When "weekend warriors" are mobilized and deployed for a year or more (a Minnesota Guard unit served 22 months, the longest of the war) their families face the same strains as active duty families, without even the minimal formal support, informal peer networks, and child care services available on base.
Scattered across states, Guard spouses struggle with social isolation, and 40 percent of military spouses said that their mental health worsened during deployment. Some Guard families grapple with a reduced household income as the result of a military wage that is lower than the soldier’s civilian pay, or because the remaining spouse has to quit work to take care of the children. Financial stressors are challenging for any family; they are especially so for military families, whose emotional reserves are depleted from paying the compound interest on multiple deployments.
The August wedding of Ellen DeGeneres and Portia di Rossi won’t strain heterosexual marriages or raise the risk of divorce. The August departure of thousands of National Guard soldiers to train for a second tour in Iraq, nearly two years before they were eligible for redeployment, according to a Pentagon policy, most certainly will.
The Department of Defense doesn’t track the marriages that end after separation from service, but I know, or know of, at least 100 Iraq War veterans who have gotten divorced. More than half of them filed after they were discharged or retired. These broken bonds might not "count" statistically, but they counted to the men and women and children whose hopes and dreams -- of love, stability, and a two-parent home -- began to die in Iraq.
Military marriages are casualties of war, not gay matrimony, and they won’t be preserved by barring the doors of the Church or the State to same-sex couples. If Americans want to protect marriage, they should be working to support veterans and military families, and end the war in Iraq.
Stay up to date with the latest Sex & Relationships headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: idmaster2000 on Jan 23, 2009 1:00 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've seen a number of hasty military marriages arranged because the soldier, usually a man, quickly marries a woman to ensure that she has benefits. Combine this with the long deployments, and you have a recipe for a failed marriage.
A friend of mine whose fiancee is in the Air Force held him off because she said that she couldn't see marrying a guy that she had only dated for five months out of the year-and-a-half that they had been together.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Courtship? what?
Posted by: Beck
» RE: Courtship?
Posted by: Karina
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rickiey on Jan 25, 2009 8:14 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The strain on those marriages is the same as it has always been.
Typically men spend too much time away from their wives, the wives cheat, and the marriage ends.
It is why the term "navy wife" is another phrase for "easy lay" in navy towns.
I've seen it happen thousands of times while I was in.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Nothin to do with the war
Posted by: Pegaleg
» RE: Nothin to do with the war
Posted by: rickiey
» That's cynical and mean, but unfortunately often very true.
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» Thousands of times?
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jan 25, 2009 8:55 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
2- Many marriages are hasty and very young. How many stories of a young Private graduating basic and then getting married or shipping of to basic have we all seen or been aware of? How many more have we seen of some 19 year old marrying his girl at the local base where his unit is normally stationed?
3- Alcohol is the lubricant of choice in the culture. Need I say more?
4- The attitude of casual sex among the younger troops, especially in the barracks or other communal housing is and has been high. The Army has been pulling midnight raids looking for 'unlawful co-habitation' for as long as there have been GI Joes and Janes in the same buildings and probably longer.
Enough for now.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Landbaron on Jan 25, 2009 4:37 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/holton1097.htm
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: curiousdwk on Jan 25, 2009 4:42 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There was an early time during the Viet Nam War when married people, and especially parents, were not even considered as suitable for the draft. If the reasons were good then, why aren't they now?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jan 26, 2009 8:08 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That doesn't mean uniformed marriages can't be done; that simply means I didn't want to add the burden of six and eight months deployments on a meager paycheck to the general problems of marriage. I cheer the many, many folks who make it happen.
Of course, our war exacerbates those hardships: it changes the men and women who fight it, it changes the relationships of those involved, it creates further distance between people and opens divides. The often-normal feelings of "You just don't understand me" are compounded, and become, in fact, very, very true in very many ways.
That's not the reason to bring our people home: the reason to bring our folks home is that they do not deserve a "nation-building" assignment. They are professional war-fighters pledged to defend us, not nannies to oversee murderous spats between religious fanatics.
The only two things GWB tried to get right in his entire presidency were:
a) continuing the failed dialogue started by WJC on how to reform social security, albeit in a half-hearted and inadequate way
b) declaring mission accomplished. Once we determined (if you still buy the premise) that Iraq was no threat and it's central government in shambles, we should have brought our war-fighters home. They did what we asked--then we let them down by making them stay and babysit the many warring and deadly tribes.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Military marriages are tough, just like police marriages, firefighter marriages...etc...
Posted by: rickiey
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sausage on Jan 26, 2009 8:43 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A large, professional standing army was anathema to our Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson abhorred even the small standing army of his day to the extent that he invented practical, civilian-oriented missions for it, think of Lewis and Clark's Voyage of the Corps of Discovery.
And, in the long march of history, large, professional standing militaries inevitably lead to military dictatorships. This was as true of ancient Rome as it was of Napoleon's France, Franco's Spain or Pinochet's Chile.
It is time progressives and patriots take the lead in supporting NY Congressman Charles Rangel's reintroduction of a military draft.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You know, that's a really interesting idea.
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» *
Posted by: ABetterFuture
Comments are closed-
Posted by: beccasaun on Jan 26, 2009 9:36 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My husband I married prior to him being deployed to OIF. We already had a daughter and were planning on marrying in October, but were forced to move it up to March thanks to his deployment in May. He wasn't about to leave myself and my daughter with no medical insurance and the wonderful military refused to even acknowledge my existence in his life unless we had that little paper signed.
He's Reserves, so there was no military base, no military structure or support available outside of the FRG (which is lacking, at best)... Rarely, unless you lose a spouse or are in this situation, will you ever have to know what it's like to carry the entire weight of holding together a home and being completely responsible for being mom and dad to your child. You just don't know until you've lived it. And the fact is, as hard as that year was- it's been the year after that's been even harder. Nothing can prepare you for reuniting with someone who has changed so dramatically, and trying to figure out who each other is again.
It's easy to blame it on cheating or getting into marriage too quickly, but the fact is- it's the stress of the changes, the way you're both put into situations that people normally never are, in completely different ways, and then having to figure it all out again. It takes something more to make military marriages work- and if you can't respect that and don't understand that, you don't have the right to comment about it.
Great article.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: 876 on Jan 26, 2009 10:40 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I guess I was the first stripper my husband met. I thought we met in grad school!
Posted by: beccasaun
» RE: No one more deserving
Posted by: beccasaun
» RE: No one more deserving
Posted by: 876
» RE: No one more deserving
Posted by: beccasaun
» RE: SU
Posted by: 876
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Frank J. Burris on Jan 26, 2009 3:43 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Save the bandwidth for legitimate arguments against the wars
Posted by: beccasaun
» RE: Save the bandwidth for legitimate arguments against the wars
Posted by: Frank J. Burris
» RE: Save the bandwidth for legitimate arguments against the wars
Posted by: beccasaun
» RE: Keep your "help" please
Posted by: 876
» RE: Keep your "help" please
Posted by: Frank J. Burris
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bobtr900 on Jan 29, 2009 1:24 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Military Marriages
Posted by: Frank J. Burris
Comments are closed-
Posted by: idmaster2000 on Jan 23, 2009 1:00 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've seen a number of hasty military marriages arranged because the soldier, usually a man, quickly marries a woman to ensure that she has benefits. Combine this with the long deployments, and you have a recipe for a failed marriage.
A friend of mine whose fiancee is in the Air Force held him off because she said that she couldn't see marrying a guy that she had only dated for five months out of the year-and-a-half that they had been together.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Courtship? what?
Posted by: Beck
» RE: Courtship?
Posted by: Karina
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rickiey on Jan 25, 2009 8:14 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The strain on those marriages is the same as it has always been.
Typically men spend too much time away from their wives, the wives cheat, and the marriage ends.
It is why the term "navy wife" is another phrase for "easy lay" in navy towns.
I've seen it happen thousands of times while I was in.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Nothin to do with the war
Posted by: Pegaleg
» RE: Nothin to do with the war
Posted by: rickiey
» That's cynical and mean, but unfortunately often very true.
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» Thousands of times?
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jan 25, 2009 8:55 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
2- Many marriages are hasty and very young. How many stories of a young Private graduating basic and then getting married or shipping of to basic have we all seen or been aware of? How many more have we seen of some 19 year old marrying his girl at the local base where his unit is normally stationed?
3- Alcohol is the lubricant of choice in the culture. Need I say more?
4- The attitude of casual sex among the younger troops, especially in the barracks or other communal housing is and has been high. The Army has been pulling midnight raids looking for 'unlawful co-habitation' for as long as there have been GI Joes and Janes in the same buildings and probably longer.
Enough for now.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Landbaron on Jan 25, 2009 4:37 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/holton1097.htm
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: curiousdwk on Jan 25, 2009 4:42 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There was an early time during the Viet Nam War when married people, and especially parents, were not even considered as suitable for the draft. If the reasons were good then, why aren't they now?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jan 26, 2009 8:08 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That doesn't mean uniformed marriages can't be done; that simply means I didn't want to add the burden of six and eight months deployments on a meager paycheck to the general problems of marriage. I cheer the many, many folks who make it happen.
Of course, our war exacerbates those hardships: it changes the men and women who fight it, it changes the relationships of those involved, it creates further distance between people and opens divides. The often-normal feelings of "You just don't understand me" are compounded, and become, in fact, very, very true in very many ways.
That's not the reason to bring our people home: the reason to bring our folks home is that they do not deserve a "nation-building" assignment. They are professional war-fighters pledged to defend us, not nannies to oversee murderous spats between religious fanatics.
The only two things GWB tried to get right in his entire presidency were:
a) continuing the failed dialogue started by WJC on how to reform social security, albeit in a half-hearted and inadequate way
b) declaring mission accomplished. Once we determined (if you still buy the premise) that Iraq was no threat and it's central government in shambles, we should have brought our war-fighters home. They did what we asked--then we let them down by making them stay and babysit the many warring and deadly tribes.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Military marriages are tough, just like police marriages, firefighter marriages...etc...
Posted by: rickiey
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sausage on Jan 26, 2009 8:43 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A large, professional standing army was anathema to our Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson abhorred even the small standing army of his day to the extent that he invented practical, civilian-oriented missions for it, think of Lewis and Clark's Voyage of the Corps of Discovery.
And, in the long march of history, large, professional standing militaries inevitably lead to military dictatorships. This was as true of ancient Rome as it was of Napoleon's France, Franco's Spain or Pinochet's Chile.
It is time progressives and patriots take the lead in supporting NY Congressman Charles Rangel's reintroduction of a military draft.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You know, that's a really interesting idea.
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» *
Posted by: ABetterFuture
Comments are closed-
Posted by: beccasaun on Jan 26, 2009 9:36 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My husband I married prior to him being deployed to OIF. We already had a daughter and were planning on marrying in October, but were forced to move it up to March thanks to his deployment in May. He wasn't about to leave myself and my daughter with no medical insurance and the wonderful military refused to even acknowledge my existence in his life unless we had that little paper signed.
He's Reserves, so there was no military base, no military structure or support available outside of the FRG (which is lacking, at best)... Rarely, unless you lose a spouse or are in this situation, will you ever have to know what it's like to carry the entire weight of holding together a home and being completely responsible for being mom and dad to your child. You just don't know until you've lived it. And the fact is, as hard as that year was- it's been the year after that's been even harder. Nothing can prepare you for reuniting with someone who has changed so dramatically, and trying to figure out who each other is again.
It's easy to blame it on cheating or getting into marriage too quickly, but the fact is- it's the stress of the changes, the way you're both put into situations that people normally never are, in completely different ways, and then having to figure it all out again. It takes something more to make military marriages work- and if you can't respect that and don't understand that, you don't have the right to comment about it.
Great article.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: 876 on Jan 26, 2009 10:40 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I guess I was the first stripper my husband met. I thought we met in grad school!
Posted by: beccasaun
» RE: No one more deserving
Posted by: beccasaun
» RE: No one more deserving
Posted by: 876
» RE: No one more deserving
Posted by: beccasaun
» RE: SU
Posted by: 876
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Frank J. Burris on Jan 26, 2009 3:43 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Save the bandwidth for legitimate arguments against the wars
Posted by: beccasaun
» RE: Save the bandwidth for legitimate arguments against the wars
Posted by: Frank J. Burris
» RE: Save the bandwidth for legitimate arguments against the wars
Posted by: beccasaun
» RE: Keep your "help" please
Posted by: 876
» RE: Keep your "help" please
Posted by: Frank J. Burris
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bobtr900 on Jan 29, 2009 1:24 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Military Marriages
Posted by: Frank J. Burris
'Reality' Show Lets You Decide If Women Get Abortions?
Sex Addiction: A B.S. Excuse for Not Thinking
Why Do People Want to Have Sex with the 9-Foot Tall Natives in 'Avatar'?




