“Till Death Do Us Part”: Does Marriage Really End With Death?

Whoever said “till death do us part,” in my opinion, I don't think marriage truly ends with death, especially when there is a child involved and a legacy has been left for the wife to carry on.

Why then do we have the words "widow" and "widower"? They describe a spouse whose husband or wife has died. It means the relationship does not simply disappear because one person has died.

There is no complete separation when children are involved. The family continues.
Even if the surviving spouse eventually remarries, the children remain members of the family that was established by their deceased father or mother. The family name, history, memories, properties and legacy can continue through those children.

In some cultures, when a husband dies, he may even be buried in the property or community of his wife because that place has become part of the family he created.

This makes me question the wording “till death do us part.”

Should it really be part of a marriage vow without further explanation?

If a man builds a house, acquires properties and makes investments during his lifetime and leaves them for his wife and children to continue with after his death, is that really a "death do us part" situation?

Death may separate the physical presence of the husband from the wife, but it does not necessarily separate the family, the children, the legacy or the responsibilities created during the marriage.

An early death may change the journey, but an old marriage that has produced children, properties, memories and a family legacy cannot simply be described as a pathway between two people that death has now completely closed.

Then comes another question.

If a married man dies, is the dowry automatically returned? Does the marriage certificate automatically become null and void?

If the marriage has ended completely, why are some siblings in such a hurry to take the properties of their late brother from his wife, as though his death has suddenly terminated the family relationship and returned the woman to where she came from?

I think this is where we need more clarity, especially in our understanding of marriage and inheritance.

My father died at the age of 82, but my mother still goes to my father's village as her home. She does not see it as a place she must leave because her husband has died.

So what does that mean? Did my father's death return her to her father's house or did the marriage he built with her leave a family, children, history and a place she still belongs to?

Perhaps “till death do us part” needs to be looked at in a different context.

Death may part husband and wife physically, but it does not necessarily erase the marriage's legacy, children, responsibilities, family identity and the life they built together.

Maybe the vow should make a clearer distinction between physical separation and the continuing obligations and legacy of a marriage.

Because sometimes, death ends a person's life. But it does not end the family that person created.

Could this be the reason why some single Nigerian men will say – "I can not marry a single mother, because a man is suppose to start it own family and legacy and not join another man's family.