A Widow's Plight
Posted: Sunday, June 14, 2009
by Grammy Guru
http://grammyguru.com
Her parents wanted her to finish high school, but she insisted she would marry the wealthy young farmer at the end of the school term. Her parents reluctantly gave their consent. She was seventeen years old when she married. It was the 1940's, and marrying at such a young age wasn't an uncommon occurrence.
She was a devoted wife and mother. After farming for twelve years, the couple sold out and moved from Iowa to Texas . Her husband became a foreman on the docks in Houston . They invested in real estate and made a good living. They helped establish one of the larger churches in Houston . Life was good. They had children and grandchildren. They were married for over fifty years. Then one day, sitting in the den of their retirement home, her husband had a massive heart attack and was dead in an instant.
She lived alone for a year, enduring bouts of depression and feelings of hopelessness. Unbelievably, many of her friends and church acquaintances did not rally to support her. One day, she went to a Parents Without Partners meeting. She was far older than most of the attendees, but she didn't care. She was still a parent and thought the meetings might be a good place to find help and support.
Almost by God's design, at that first meeting, she met, Richard, a widower who was a few years her senior. His wife of fifty years had died, and he was sad and lonely also. After the meetings, they began to talk and, eventually, had casual coffee dates. After a year of dating casually, they fell in love. He was the man of her dreams; patient, kind, loving and a better father to her children than their own father had been. He wanted to marry her, and she wanted to be his wife.
Their children thought they deserved to be happy and supported a marriage between the couple. However, when Ruth contacted her insurance carrier, they informed her that, when she remarried, she would not be covered by her deceased husband's insurance nor would she continue receiving her widow's pension.
Richard was willing to support Ruth and assume responsibility for her medical coverage; however, she knew that would create a financial burden for him. She was accustomed to receiving her widow's pension and insurance benefits as well as her deceased husband's Social Security benefits. Without that income and those benefits, they would struggle to make ends meet.
Reluctantly Ruth declined to marry Richard. They maintained their respective homes and saw one another daily, but they were never able to marry and become true partners. Both Richard and Ruth were Christians and believed that living together without being legally married was a sin.
When Richard became terminally ill and was forced to relocate to northern Texas so that one of his children could assume responsibility for his care, he lost the will to live. Ruth had become more feeble and was unable to make the two hour journey to visit him. Although they spoke by telephone every day, they missed eating together, attending church and family functions together and seeing one another every day.
Ruth lived a year and a half after Richard's demise. During that time, she often said Richard was the great love of her life, and, she wasn't sure not marrying him had been the right decision after all.
I believe it is a great injustice that Ruth had to make that decision. Marrying after her husband's death should not have disqualified her from receiving her widow's pension, her insurance benefits nor her first husband's Social Security benefits.
I wonder when these archaic Social Security laws and pension rules will change so that lonely widows, who want to have a second chance at love, can do so without having to choose between co-habiting and being legally married?
God blesses the marriage union, so why are the government and companies, that give us the pensions we've earned, so eager to deprive widows of their benefits?
This Article has been viewed 1,288 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
More commentsWonderful article! I agree with you that some changes need to be made to the laws. It's outrageous that she had to give up marrying the love of her life.Please log in to respond to this comment.Hi, Linda,Thanks for reading and commenting. As soon as I can figure out the right manner to address this problem in a concise and intelligent manner, I do plan to bring it to the attention of my congressman and anyone else who will listen. Enough already! I don't want another generation of women to be thus penalized.Best regards,GrammyPlease log in to respond to this comment.
It is a wonderful story and so true about the archaic laws -Please log in to respond to this comment.Thanks so much for reading and commenting, Marion.Best wishes,GrammyPlease log in to respond to this comment.
Think its high time for the laws to be changed! WDYT, Grammy...ready to start a campaign??? :) Great writing as always!Please log in to respond to this comment.Hi, Debra,Yes, I do think a campaign is sorely needed. I certainly have no experience in this area; however, I'd certainly be interested in hearing from those who have. I think that sometimes going to a congressman with this issue is a good place to begin, but maybe this would be a good topic for Oprah to cover. She has a way of getting national attention on social issues.Any suggestions are most welcome.Best wishes,GrammyPlease log in to respond to this comment.
Grammy Guru-What a touching story and so very sad for Ruth. Maybe your article will inspire someone to change something in Washington.Thanks for sharing.Please log in to respond to this comment.Dear Laura,Thanks so much for reading and commenting.I'd be delighted if an act of Congress could change this law. Who knows? We have a lot of intelligent women activist who may be ready to take it on. I haven't a clue how to begin, but I can certainly work hard and help someone who knows how.Best regards,GrammyPlease log in to respond to this comment.
Grammy, touching story. It's sad how so many issues fall through the cracks because there is no one championing them. Hopefully this can be the start of something for widows.Please log in to respond to this comment.Dear Rob,From your lips to God's ears!I hope this will be an issue that will have to be addressed in Congress at some point, because so many women are so angry at the injustice of this law.Thanks for reading and commenting.GrammyPlease log in to respond to this comment.
A bittersweet story, Grammy. I don't know what the answer is, but to lose benes as a senior for remarriage isn't right. Sadly, I think things will get much worse before they get better, if they ever do.Please log in to respond to this comment.Dear Lorrie,I hope that someday this issue will be raised on a national level and addressed by Congress. Until then, I have no reason to believe a widow's plight will change in this regard.Thanks so much for reading and commenting.GrammyPlease log in to respond to this comment.
That was the best, I don't think people are aware of what the government is capable of doing. It is almost as if they have your fate in their hands, it's a shame.Please log in to respond to this comment.Dear Patsy,Thanks for reading and commenting. You are right. We pay into SS and work for company benefits, so why does the government care whether a widow or widower remarries when their spouse has died? Those benefits were earned and should have nothing to do with remarriage.Best wishes,GrammyPlease log in to respond to this comment.
At the very least, the pensions could be means tested, and if the new spouse of male or female partner is on a modest income, then the pensions should continue in full. Sad for them both, but very glad that they found each other and had some a wonderful companionship after a long life time. Most live it out alone.Please log in to respond to this comment.Dear Hannah,When one works for benefits for themselves and their spouse, and earns them, why on earth should these benefits be forfeited because a spouse dies?It is not the government's business whether the widow remarries or not. In Ruth's case, her husband and she worked for over fifty years for these benefits, so those benefits are hers. The government would not have objected to her living with Richard, but they would certainly stick its nose in if she married him. How insane! In this case, does the government support marriage?Best wishes,GrammyPlease log in to respond to this comment.
Definitely sad, when you have to chose between having financial stability and sharing your life with someone you love...Please log in to respond to this comment.Dear Rhonda,Yes, this is a sad case, and there are many just like it. Incomprehensibly stupid legislation.Thanks for reading and commenting.GrammyPlease log in to respond to this comment.
Thank you for posting this article and I do agree that laws eed to be reformed. There are so many that are actually hurting the people these days.Please log in to respond to this comment.Dear Chrissy,Thanks for reading and commenting. There are many injustices in this world. Some cannot be corrected, but I believe this one can.Best wishes.GrammyPlease log in to respond to this comment.
More comments
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.