Commitment to both children and new spouse does not require taking sides

E.W. is one of my favorite readers with whom to banter and think. Today she is responding to my Jan. 27 column about "An Entire Marriage:" (www.lvrj.com/living/-an-entire-marriage-is-not-in-most-people-s-minds-188560641.html).

I think that you can be totally committed to your children from a previous marriage and your new spouse. It's not an either/or situation. You have been in a relationship longer with your children (generally speaking) than your new spouse and you can't get divorced from your children. That does not make the relationship you have with your new spouse any less important - only different. But if your new spouse comes up with the typical "choose one of us" scenario (only one vaccine left in the world to save us from a certain death who would get the vaccine?), it is not wise to answer that question. You have to be Kirk and cheat the test so everyone survives. But my new spouse would not even ask that question (because he would know that I choose my kid). - E.W., Las Vegas

Ah, but if your commitment to both children and new spouse is total (though different), then why would you have to cheat the test to guarantee "survival"? I would dare say that, should you pose this same outlandish scenario to an always married, never divorced couple with children, then each of them, too, would give the vaccine to the child, and expect that rightly of themselves and each other. This would not contradict the necessary and right primacy of the marriage in a family hierarchy; rather, it would express its fullness. Its sacrificial nature.

I agree with you that, whether your family is contiguous or blended, marital commitments and commitments to our children are not "either/or." I agree with you the commitments are different. For me, the difference is not in the longevity of the relationships. It does not necessarily follow that my primary allegiance always goes to the one I've loved the longest. If this was the case, my best and oldest childhood friend would always side with me over his wife. He doesn't.

Neither do I think the most telling difference between children and mates is "blood" versus choice. Or the legal difference that we may divorce our mates but cannot divorce our children. (At least not without hearing from Child Protective Services!) I think the most fundamental difference between these two commitments has to do with the disproportionate vulnerability of children. Strictly speaking, my girlfriend can't abandon me. She can dump me. Break my heart. Betray me, even. But not really abandon me, because we have a more or less equal power as competent, adult individuals.

So, of course we give the vaccine to the child. Because we're the grown-ups.

What I was saying in the column you reference was more the way modern blended families deliberately (if sometimes unconsciously) subvert a healthy family hierarchy. They fall in love and remarry, but the existing children are primary instead of the marriage. The most radical "We" remains "me and my kids" instead of "me and you." I insist this renegotiates the marriage symbol. It builds the new marriage on inherently unstable and destabilizing ground. Not to mention that it's not in the best interest of children to wield this much power in a family hierarchy, let alone in the marriage itself.

Of course one of the measures for divorced parents in a new courtship will be a sober assessment of how the prospective new life partner will respect, value and support our role as a father/mother. Of course we wouldn't choose a life partner who held our children in contempt. Of course we'll introduce the new courtship to our children with care, sensitivity and integrity.

But none of this means, strictly speaking, that we seek or need our children's approval. None of this means our children should have the right to adjudicate the relationship. None of this means that our children must warm to the courtship. We can hope for this, but frankly, I would never say to any of my sons, "I insist that you like my girlfriend and approve of our relationship."

If it was a speech to a prospective new mate, it would sound like this:

"I love you, and that means I love your life as a parent, too. I will work hard to shape a relationship of friendship, courtesy and respect with your children. I will hope for the emergence of real affection and love - a true family bond - though that may or may not happen. I will never, ever ask you to choose between me and your children. However, should your children, in behavior or words, ever demand that you choose between themselves and me well, I'm your husband/wife. I expect you to choose me."

That's An Entire Marriage.

Steven Kalas is a behavioral health consultant and counselor at Las Vegas Psychiatry and the author of "Human Matters: Wise and Witty Counsel on Relationships, Parenting, Grief and Doing the Right Thing" (Stephens Press). His columns appear on Sundays. Contact him at 702-227-4165 or skalas@reviewjournal.com.