Well that depends on what you mean by a happy marriage. If by “happy marriage” you mean that both spouses are deliriously happy with one another all the time, then yes. I would have to go with common conventional wisdom and agree that happy marriages are as elusive as unicorns.
My definition of a happy marriage however, is a based a bit more in reality. Firstly, a happy marriage is one where both man and wife understand that marriage is not a perpetual courtship. Somewhere along the line we have redefined marriage from vocation and sacred union to an institution designed to make us happy and keep us emotionally fulfilled. Rough patches are no longer rough patches to work through and come out on the other side more mature and loving. Instead, they are a sign that one or both of the parties “made a mistake.” Our culture has nearly completely abandoned the idea of challenges as an opportunity to grow, and marriage has suffered as a result.
Secondly, we have found that the good days almost always outnumber the bad when the a commitment to staying together has already been established. I have learned from some couples that this isn’t always the case, but I think it can be the rule rather than the exception. SAM and I have learned to laugh at the things about one another that drove us crazy in the early years of marriage. We were able to do that because we finally understood that some of these quirks are things we are just stuck with. So we laugh with (and sometimes at) each other and adjust accordingly. Anytime you can laugh together in your marriage, you’re making an investment in the possibility for a happier union.
Thirdly, I don’t try to make my husband be my BFF. When I wanted to go see The Help, I called a girlfriend. We took our teenage daughters with us, and we had a great time. There was no marital bonding to be had by trying to drag my husband to a movie he’d rather gouge his eyes out than watch. While I appreciate the sentiment behind the idea of your spouse as your best friend, and my husband is certainly the one I turn to with my deepest fears and biggest dreams, that need not mean that he can’t have fun with the boys without me tagging along even though I have no interest in watching a pick up basketball game. Great friends? Yes. BFF’s? Not so much.
And then of course, there are the bones of contentions which I hesitate to wade into but as a firm believer in Christian marriage, I would be remiss if I didn’t. They are of course, submission and sex. There is more than enough on this in the archives for those who want a more detailed idea of my thoughts, but I can sum it up in two points:
1. Wives, submit to your own husbands and let him lead the family with you as his first mate. I have yet to see a marriage where the man was being led around by his wife when he didn’t look dejected and take every opportunity afforded him to be away from her. I think C.S. Lewis expounded quite well on the issue in his book, Mere Christianity:
Something else, even more unpopular, remains to be dealt with. Christian wives promise to obey their husbands. In Christian marriage the man is said to be the ‘head’. Two questions obviously arise here. (1) Why should there be a head at all — why not equality? (2) Why should it be the man?
(1) The need for some head follows from the idea that marriage is permanent. Of course, as long as the husband and wife are agreed, no question of a head need arise; and we may hope that this will be the normal state of affairs in a Christian marriage. But when there is a real disagreement, what is to happen? Talk it over, of course; but I am assuming they have done that and still failed to reach agreement. What do they do next? They cannot decide by a majority vote, for in a council of two there can be no majority. Surely, only one or other of two things can happen: either they must separate and go their own ways or else one or other of them must have a casting vote. If marriage is permanent, one or other party must, in the last resort, have the power of deciding the family policy. You cannot have a permanent association without a constitution.
(2) If there must be a head, why the man? Well, firstly, is there any very serious wish that it should be the woman? As I have said, I am not married myself [Lewis later married], but as far as I can see, even a woman who wants to be the head of her own house does not usually admire the same state of things when she finds it going on next door. She is much more likely to say ‘Poor Mr X! Why he allows that appalling woman to boss him about the way she does is more than I can imagine.’ I do not think she is even very flattered if anyone mentions the fact of her own ‘headship’. There must be something unnatural about the rule of wives over husbands, because the wives themselves are half ashamed of it and despise the husbands whom they rule.”
2. As for the issue of sex: Paul wrote that we are not to deprive one another of sexual affection. That the Bible says it should be enough but when has it ever been enough? Just do it, enjoy it, and take the time to get to know what makes your husband tick. This includes be willing to pass on the apple pie a la mode for the purposes of staying in decent shape.
Will any of this guarantee a blissful union? In life there are no guarantees, so I stop short of offering any. One thing I do know is that won’t hurt us to get outside of ourselves long enough to see if it’s just possible that a happy marriage is possible, even after many years.
This post is being contributed to Wifey Wednesday, hosted by Sheila at To Love, Honor, and Vacuum.





