The case for middle-aged divorce

While four decades is an impressive chunk of time to spend together, it is not the lifetime it once was, when people viewed 60 as the start—or even shank—of their golden years. Al (62) and Tipper (61) are, as many have pointed out this week, Baby Boomers. And while I don’t buy the nutty notion, floated by some history professor in The New York Times, that divorce is “the iconic Baby Boomer act” and this split is part of Gore’s “psychic competition” with Bill Clinton over who is more representative of their generation, in marriage as in everything, Boomers don’t see 60 as the time to kick back and settle into the big fade. Just because Al and Tipper weathered 40 years together doesn’t mean they have the inclination to try for another 20—or 30.

As for the argument that they have already been through so much, that cuts both ways. An awful lot of baggage can pile up over 40 years. (Hell, most couples I know have amassed a scary amount after a mere 10 or 15.) Once you no longer have to worry that separating will scar the kids or derail your career, maybe starting all over again seems less rather than more daunting. And it’s not as though the split cancels out those decades. The shared experience will be with both of you forever (which, let’s face it, may well be a big part of the desire to move on).