A reverse case : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Murray

> William J. Murray III was born in Ohio in 1946, the son of William J. Murray Jr. and Madalyn Murray O'Hair, an atheist activist

> Murray became a Christian in 1980. Learning of his conversion, his mother commented: "One could call this a postnatal abortion on the part of a mother, I guess; I repudiate him entirely and completely for now and all times. He is beyond human forgiveness."

That is equally crappy. To me the great crime of most religions (those that are thought of traditionally as religions as well as just philosophies) is that they brainwash the young in the most deceitful manners who become members by the sheer chance that they were born to believers.

That isn't the reverse; it's just the same thing happening to someone else.

Absolutely not what the article portrays. From my reading, it sounds like John's indiscretions, including stints in rehab for drug abuse, are tolerated (if not outright ignored) until he visits his parents to say he's getting a divorce. His parents then cut him off from the bulk of the family assets, but it sounds like his family is still in communication with him and tries to remain on good terms. Angry that his decision to indulge himself in a mid-life crisis and leave his wife and children cost him a lot of money, he is now filing a lawsuit claiming to be a victim.

I doubt John actually expects this lawsuit to go anywhere, as the article doesn't seem to discuss any actual legal claim. It's probably more just about airing dirty laundry if they won't let him back in the bank account. And to their credit, it appears the Marriotts are holding their ground.

As far as I'm concerned this article portrays 100% commendable behavior from the Marriott family (and religion is mentioned only in passing). If any of my children come and tell me that they're abandoning their spouse and children because they "fell in love with someone else", I hope that I can have similar resolve to cut off their access to anything substantial, because that is not OK, and a good parent will not pretend like it is.

Abandoning your family is not an acceptable course of conduct, no matter how many times you cry because your dad picked someone else to become CEO, which is literally the story here.

Leaving an apparently loveless marriage and getting a divorce doesn't mean abandoning your family. Most people who get divorced are still involved in their kids lives. My parents got divorced when I was 10 and my family was much happier for it. I don't feel any particular way about this man or his situation, but this idea that couples need to stay together for the kids or because that's what they promised 25 years ago is crazy. Not to mention that if this guy is 50 some years old his kids are likely adults by now or close enough.

> this idea that couples need to stay together for the kids or because that's what they promised 25 years ago is crazy.

The entire concept of marriage is that you will "stay together ... because that's what you promised xx years ago". So it's definitely not crazy, though the conception of marriage as a significant or binding thing has lost popular appeal over the years. And that only means that the Marriotts deserve more admiration for their willingness to stick up for stable marriages and responsible fathers despite the peanut gallery giving them flak.

There are times that divorce is justified, yes. But "I just don't love him/her anymore" is 1000% not one of them, and it's a relief to see people like the Marriotts unwilling to indulge their son's playboy fantasies.

A loveless marriage is not a stable one.