|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Prenuptial Disagreement
|
Trin
Shipmate
# 12100
|
Posted
My fiancé-to-be would bring significant assets to our marriage and insists that it is only fair and a sensible precaution that we sign a formal prenuptial agreement stating that her assets remain hers, were the marriage to end. In spite of her assets, I will be the main wage earner.
It seems to me that preparing for divorce before a marriage has even begun is contrary to the marriage itself and I feel that she is marking territory and preemptively staking a claim against me. I feel no entitlement to her assets but I am hurt to be legislated against and that the whole idea goes against the grain of a loving married relationship - specifically that we should be "for" one another, not against.
She says that my faith in the endurance of our relationship is naïve. The statistics and anecdotal evidence show that inamicable marital breakup is common and cannot be ruled out, no matter how much we love one another, but that the above does not reflect weakness in the relationship – just good sense.
Prior to this, everything was going very nicely.
Who is right?
Posts: 442 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
Both of you, sadly. That's just the world we live in these days.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
I don't think it's a question of who is right. Unless you think it's more important to be right than to be happy. However, I share the RC Church's view that a prenuptial agreement renders a marriage nul. That doesn't, of course, help you resolve your problem. I don't think I know how you do that.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
You are. I wouldn't officiate at a marriage if I knew the couple had a prenuptial agreement. Are you sure your fiancee is the right one? Doesn't sound like she plans on taking her marriage vows seriously.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
Does she have children from a previous marriage?
The only case I can see for a pre-nup is if a person is concerned about the future of his/her children and their inheritance.
For example, let's say my elderly, widowed mother remarried a much younger boy toy. The honeymoon is too much for her and she dies of a heart attack on her wedding night. In a community property state (this varies from state to state in the United States), the millions of hard-earned dollars that my late father left behind would go to boy toy, not to me and my siblings.
But a young couple on a first marriage with no kids on either side? ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Is the desire for a pre-nup purely hers? I have a friend who is likely to inherit "family" money and whose father doesn't want to risk "his" family money going outwith the family. This is a miserable situation for her, as her father is impuning the motives of anyone who isn't willing to forego any rights in the "family" money.
Is your fiancee under any pressure to foist this on you?
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
Beeswax-
What a marvelous insight you have into the souls and future intentions of others. However do you manage it? Perhaps the fiancee is just aware that any number of things could occur that may lead to a breakdown of marriage--infidelity being just one.
This is also the first I've heard of the RC viewing prenups as invalidating a marriage. Any backing for that?
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
I dunno where you are. So, I will try several scenarios.
In a marital property state like Tennessee, the prenuptial agreement usually only controls that which is brought into the marriage. So, she would have sole ownership of her stuff from before the marriage if you got divorced, and vice versa. Of the stuff acquired during the marriage, you would each get half. This is essentially, by the way, how the law works anyway.
In a community property state everything brought into the marriage is community property. There, a prenuptial tends to work the same way as Tennessee. It details what each party brings in and says they keep that in the event of a divorce. It might also detail what percentage of property acquired during the marriage goes with whom in the event of a significant disparity in earnings.
So, you can lament her precaution. Or, you could do a sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander thing and demand that a higher percentage of what it brought into the marriage stay with you in the event of a divorce. You would at least discover if this is about protecting assets, or gaining more in the event of a divorce.
Or, you could just sign it and do your best to make the marriage work and quit worrying about divorce.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trin
Shipmate
# 12100
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Is your fiancee under any pressure to foist this on you?
She shares the strong opinion of her family, rather than being forced by them.
Posts: 442 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
This is also the first I've heard of the RC viewing prenups as invalidating a marriage. Any backing for that?
I can only say that I was told this on my marriage preparation course and that subsequent research indicates that the Church may allow marriage with certain prenups, for example one dealing with division of assets on death. However prenups which make marriage contingent upon the reservation of certain rights to assets during lifetime indicate that marriage is not entered into unconditionally.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Doesn't sound like she plans on taking her marriage vows seriously.
I have car insurance to protect me in the event of an accident, but that doesn't mean I plan to have one. Why would desiring a measure of insurance against losing ones assets in the event of a divorce mean one is any less serious about never wanting such a divorce to happen?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wm Dewy
Shipmate
# 16712
|
Posted
I’m not proud to be naïve, but I suppose I am.
When you stand up in front of God and everybody and promise to live together after God’s ordinance in the holy estate of matrimony, do you mean it or not? If not, don’t do it and have a civil marriage.
Disposable marriage may not be a new problem, but it is become widespread. I am immediately reminded of William Makepeace Thackeray’s satirical 1847 advice in Vanity Fair:
quote:
Get yourselves married as they do in France, where the lawyers are the bridesmaids and confidantes. At any rate, never have any feelings which may make you uncomfortable, or make any promises which you cannot at any required moment command and withdraw. This is the way to get on, and be respected, and have a virtuous character in Vanity Fair.
--------------------
"And harmoniums and barrel - organs be miserable--what shall I call 'em ? - miserable machines for such a divine thing as music!"
Posts: 216 | From: Indiana USA | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Beeswax-
What a marvelous insight you have into the souls and future intentions of others. However do you manage it? Perhaps the fiancee is just aware that any number of things could occur that may lead to a breakdown of marriage--infidelity being just one.
This is also the first I've heard of the RC viewing prenups as invalidating a marriage. Any backing for that?
Fidelity isn't the only part of the marriage vows. I'm not blessing any marriage where one of the people is already planning a divorce. Go to Vegas and get Elvis to do it.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
There's a high rate of divorce in the USA (approx. 50%), isn't there? So it seems wise to consider that possibility. But it would perhaps be more positive to spend some time on a marriage preparation course than on a prenup. Maybe people need to know what the warning signs are, or what to do when problems arise, rather than planning for divorce.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
And way to totally miss my point. "Planning on divorce" is nothing you can say with any confidence.
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
The two situations where a pre-nuptial agreement should be considered a necessity (both of which have been touched on briefly already):
- When there are pre-existing children with an inheritance to protect
- When one (or both) of the parties is the part-owner of a family-run business
Remember, pre-nuptial agreements can also deal with the issue of unexpected early death as well as divorce.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
And way to totally miss my point. "Planning on divorce" is nothing you can say with any confidence.
A prenuptial agreement is planning for divorce. The couple might as well draw up divorce papers in advance. Maybe, they'll be more charitable to one another when they are in love (or something like it) than when after they start hating one another.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
A prenuptial agreement is planning for divorce.
As I said before, though you seem to have missed it:
I have car insurance to protect me in the event of an accident, but that doesn't mean I plan to have one. Why would desiring a measure of insurance against losing ones assets in the event of a divorce mean one is any less serious about never wanting such a divorce to happen?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The two situations where a pre-nuptial agreement should be considered a necessity (both of which have been touched on briefly already):
- When there are pre-existing children with an inheritance to protect
- When one (or both) of the parties is the part-owner of a family-run business
Both of these scenarios would be more appropriately dealt with by putting the relevant assets in trust than by saying that, with respect to these assets, both parties will behave as if they are not married.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Croesos - why would these matters not be better considered using terms of a will (in respect of your last 2 lines), or setting up a trust in respect of your bullet points? I agree these are important things to consider, but pre-nuptial agreements are distinctly iffy under the law. The few that have gone to court have been upheld but there is no future guarantee (as I understand it).
(eta: crossposted with erroneous monk...)
[ 12. April 2012, 13:33: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
A prenuptial agreement is planning for divorce.
As I said before, though you seem to have missed it:
I have car insurance to protect me in the event of an accident, but that doesn't mean I plan to have one. Why would desiring a measure of insurance against losing ones assets in the event of a divorce mean one is any less serious about never wanting such a divorce to happen?
Marvin - the short answer to your question is probably "moral hazard".
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Croesos - why would these matters not be better considered using terms of a will (in respect of your last 2 lines), or setting up a trust in respect of your bullet points?
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Both of these scenarios would be more appropriately dealt with by putting the relevant assets in trust than by saying that, with respect to these assets, both parties will behave as if they are not married.
Doesn't that miss the point? If a pre-nuptial agreement is "planning for divorce", doesn't setting up a trust in advance do the same thing? After all, entrusted assets are just as separate in the event of a divorce as they are in cases of demise. You're simply suggesting the same solution using different tools.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Episcoterian
Shipmate
# 13185
|
Posted
In Brazil, the default legal regime for a couple's assets is Partial Communion. Which means whatever you brought to marriage remains yours; in case of divorce, only assets acquired during the relationship are to be split. There's no need for a pre-nup if one is only bringing real estate, vehicles or inheritance money/jewels/stocks, as these are already well documented.
On the subject, I'm personally against pre-nups for the same reasons mentioned above, even if, as a lawyer, I must recommend them. It's all about averting future problems. That's why, when drafting a contract, we must predict clauses which sound completely remote and absurd to clients who are now friendly and excited about a new business venture. Same goes for a passionate couple headed to the altar.
Nobody is expecting nor hoping them to go sour. But it is good (and will save everyone involved a lot of trouble and tons of money) if the outcome is already set, should it happen.
--------------------
"We cannot let individualism make corporate worship impossible!" (iMonk)
I'm on Facebook too!
Posts: 286 | From: Franca, SP, Brazil | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trin:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Is your fiancee under any pressure to foist this on you?
She shares the strong opinion of her family, rather than being forced by them.
So, she had probably imbued this idea from her family prior to meeting you? I.e. she has been raised to regard pre-nups as sensible? She would want a pre-nup before marrying anyone? This suggests it isn't about her attitude to her relationship with you, but about her attitude to marriage and what it means?
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
Trin,
you're both wrong - for each other. Break it off now mate, while it's easy. Why go through the whole marriage/divorce thing when you don't have to?
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trin
Shipmate
# 12100
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Trin,
you're both wrong - for each other. Break it off now mate, while it's easy. Why go through the whole marriage/divorce thing when you don't have to?
That's sincerely worrying...
Posts: 442 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
I'd listen to him.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I have car insurance to protect me in the event of an accident, but that doesn't mean I plan to have one. Why would desiring a measure of insurance against losing ones assets in the event of a divorce mean one is any less serious about never wanting such a divorce to happen?
Marvin - the short answer to your question is probably "moral hazard".
What moral hazard, though? Do you think drivers who have insurance are less likely to try to avoid accidents? Do you think people who have home insurance are less likely to make sure they lock the windows if they go out? Do you think that people who have health insurance are less likely to try to avoid illness? If not, then why on earth would you think that people who have what amounts to insurance against divorce are less likely to try to avoid having one?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
I'd wait a while, let the dust settle. This may have come as a huge shock and could easily be the first time the two of you haven't been of one mind. If that means postponing plans, your lives will be the better for it, whatever happens.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
My father used to always tell me, "You gotta drive for everybody else." What he meant was you can't trust everybody else on the road. Makes sense. Most of them are total strangers. You can't trust the person you are marrying? Don't marry them.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'd listen to him.
And I'd be damned careful about handing out rash relationship advice like that...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Croesos - why would these matters not be better considered using terms of a will (in respect of your last 2 lines), or setting up a trust in respect of your bullet points?
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Both of these scenarios would be more appropriately dealt with by putting the relevant assets in trust than by saying that, with respect to these assets, both parties will behave as if they are not married.
Doesn't that miss the point? If a pre-nuptial agreement is "planning for divorce", doesn't setting up a trust in advance do the same thing? After all, entrusted assets are just as separate in the event of a divorce as they are in cases of demise. You're simply suggesting the same solution using different tools.
Not at all. Putting the assets in trust is effectively giving them away (in this case, to the children, or other party intended to succeed to the family business) in advance, with a trust arrangement in place until the children/successors are of age.
To me there's a huge difference between saying: "this asset is not part of our marriage because its value has to be protected for someone else, so let's both effectively relinquish it now" and saying "this asset is not part of our marrage because I want to protect its value for myself."
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
My father used to always tell me, "You gotta drive for everybody else." What he meant was you can't trust everybody else on the road. Makes sense. Most of them are total strangers. You can't trust the person you are marrying? Don't marry them.
People change - you might trust your partner now, but how do you know you can still trust them in twenty or thirty years time? For that matter, how do you know you can trust yourself in twenty or thirty years time?
And that's before you even consider the question of how much you can really trust anybody else. Frankly, if everybody followed your guidelines then nobody but the most over-optimistic of airheads would ever marry. The rest of us would be spending our whole lives wondering if we really knew everything there is to know about our partners - including what they'll be like if they have children, or if they (or you) have a life-changing accident, or simply if your interests diverge over time - before agreeing to marry them.
In every single other venture known to humanity, an attitude of "I'm going to work as hard as I can to make a success of this, but if it somehow goes wrong then I'm going to make sure I've got a bit of protection in place as well" would be lauded. Why is marriage the one venture where it's considered morally wrong to even consider the possibility of failure?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ecumaniac
Ship's whipping girl
# 376
|
Posted
You might find this article of interest.
Personally, I wouldn't go into a marriage without one.
--------------------
it's a secret club for people with a knitting addiction, hiding under the cloak of BDSM - Catrine
Posts: 2901 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I can't see myself ever signing a pre-nup, but even so ...
If someone can be acting out of both honourable motives (in this case, prudence in the face of a sad reality) and dishonourable motives (such as planning for adultery), why must we think the worst and assume it's the dishonourable motives at play? (I'm looking at you in particular, Beeswax Altar).
If I ever did sign a pre-nup, I would be thinking something like this: I am not trustworthy, my partner should have some protection in case I turn out to be a bastard.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trin:
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Trin,
you're both wrong - for each other. Break it off now mate, while it's easy. Why go through the whole marriage/divorce thing when you don't have to?
That's sincerely worrying...
Yes it is. The notion that differences in views should be a deal-breaker in a relationship is nothing short of idiotic. This is hardly the only time that you will find yourself at odds with the one you love on some matter of importance. The thing that you need to do is develop ways of airing your differing views so you both understand each other's point of view and can lead to a compromise you both can live with.
Councelling that you bail out now is councelling that you only consider marrying yourself. It is always possible that you would end up deciding that you can't resolve your differences on this issue, and so you are better off not getting married. But the number of voices councelling such a thing here is genuinely troubling. That some may be in a position of pastoral councelling is even more alarming.
Do the adult thing and work toward resolving this disagreement in a way that you can both live with -- developing the skills to do that now will give your marriage a much better chance of surviving, whether you end up with a prenup or not.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Here is some advice.
Get a grip.
Plenty of people with prenuptial agreements have happy marriages. The world exists in all kinds of shades and is not just black and white.
Try discussing this in terms other than your hurt feelings.
If you get nowhere, ask yourself if this is who you want to be with for the rest of your life. If it is, marry her. If not, be sure to flounce out with the proper amount of outrage.
The things that pass for common sense on these boards.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I can't see myself ever signing a pre-nup, but even so ...
If someone can be acting out of both honourable motives (in this case, prudence in the face of a sad reality) and dishonourable motives (such as planning for adultery), why must we think the worst and assume it's the dishonourable motives at play? (I'm looking at you in particular, Beeswax Altar).
If I ever did sign a pre-nup, I would be thinking something like this: I am not trustworthy, my partner should have some protection in case I turn out to be a bastard.
Marriage vows aren't just about fidelity. Again, if you love your money more than the person you are about to marry, don't get married. If you think you are an untrustworthy bastard, then don't take marriage vows.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I thought the doctrine of original sin required me to think myself an untrustworthy bastard.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I thought the doctrine of original sin required me to think myself an untrustworthy bastard.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I thought the doctrine of original sin required me to think myself an untrustworthy bastard.
Or even just acknowledgement of your human nature to avoid the language of "original sin."
I went into marriage fully accepting that both of us might break our vows and hopeful that, if we did, we would be able to forgive and reconcile. It's worked for 13+ years so far.
This still seems to me to be a separate issue from that of ring-fencing any aspect of your life and saying that in respect of it, you will be entitled to behave as if you aren't married.
[ 12. April 2012, 14:59: Message edited by: Erroneous Monk ]
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by tclune:
That some may be in a position of pastoral councelling is even more alarming.
Pastoral theology prof., at a middle of the road TEC seminary, told us repeatedly not to agree to do a marriage if the couple had a prenuptial agreement. I hadn't thought about it before she said it. The more I thought about it the more I agreed with her.
Marriage had already become a joke. To me, prenuptial agreements make a mockery of the marriage vows. I will not bless a marriage when one of the parties is already considering the possibility of its failure. I'm not a justice of the peace and I don't run a marriage chapel.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Fidelity isn't the only part of the marriage vows. I'm not blessing any marriage where one of the people is already planning a divorce. Go to Vegas and get Elvis to do it.
Just goes to show you should leave the preachin' to the preachers, and talk to a lawyer or an accountant about lawyerin' or accountantin'.
I'm not sure if I ever went crazy and got married again if I'd go full bore prenup, but I do have assets I have carefully and cautiously built back up after my ex-wife took off with our joint bank account, joint credit card where I was the primary holder, and joint collection of Harry Potter books.
(Yeah, we were 22, the Harry Potter books were pretty much the pinnacle of our assets at the time. She also took the bed.)
It's because of this situation I am adamantly against joint bank accounts. But that's an entirely personal situation based both on personal experiences and my professional experience in the accounting and finance fields.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'd listen to him.
And I'd be damned careful about handing out rash relationship advice like that...
I agree.
I feel we're handing out simplistic answers to complex issues. One person has been raised to believe that prenups are always "planning for divorce"; another to assume they are "sensible planning". Both are too simplistic. People entering into prenups will be as diverse as there are people. Their motives and intent will be mixed, varied, complex, and probably mostly subconscious. To attempt to characterize either side's intent from such bare facts is absurd.
My suggestion would simply be: keep talking. Maybe with a therapist or pastor. Keep talking about your feelings, her feelings, your intent, her intent. Keep talking about trust, and how you build it, how you destroy it, what it's based on.
Don't rush into marriage while you're feeling uncertain about a potential red flag, but don't rush to break it off either.
Keep talking.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I thought the doctrine of original sin required me to think myself an untrustworthy bastard.
You are forgetting about grace. We receive grace through the sacraments. Why receive a sacrament if you don't believe it is efficacious?
quote:
originally posted by Spiffy:
Just goes to show you should leave the preachin' to the preachers, and talk to a lawyer or an accountant about lawyerin' or accountantin'.
We can leave what now passes for marriage to the accountants and lawyers for all I care. Get the lawyer who handles the prenup to suggest a judge or jp who does a nice marriage ceremony. Better yet, find an accountant or lawyer with an ordination certificate from the Universal Life Church. What's not to like about one stop shopping?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
There is, of course, the other side of the coin on this issue. If one partner has "significant assets" and the other considers the biggest factor in the upcoming marriage (big enough to be a make-or-break factor) to be getting his hands on these "significant assets" on day one, isn't that a warning sign?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Oh dear, oh dear. I think pre-nups can make sense, depending on what the distribution upon divorce regime provides for in your legal jurisdiction. As someone with a family history of whackadoo mental illness and alcoholism ("they go together, like Ramalamalama..."), I've seen non-divorce and divorce scenarios where it would have been nice if there had been some way to prevent marital property from being gambled away in Vegas or ____ rather than spent as needed for the maintenance of the wife or husband who ended up impoverished after the death/departure of said whackadoo alcoholic.
We don't have a pre-nup because we were children when we married and neither of us had squat to protect (nor, alas, any family trust funds). Accordingly, neither of us could afford to divorce the other even if we wanted to [Ernie laugh]. Bit I can imagine circumstances under which it might have made sense.
ps: Please don't take marital advice from us. What do we know?
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
This still seems to me to be a separate issue from that of ring-fencing any aspect of your life and saying that in respect of it, you will be entitled to behave as if you aren't married.
That's not what it is, though. It's more like saying that as long as the marriage lasts the resource is to be shared, but in the event of divorce it will revert entirely to the partner who brought it into the marriage in the first place.
That's a world away from saying the other partner can't ever use the resource at all, or that it's somehow not part of the marriage.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
If you think your fiancee might be a gold digger, don't get married.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I will not bless a marriage when one of the parties is already considering the possibility of its failure.
Personally, if I was a priest I wouldn't bless any marriage where one or both of the partners had never considered that possibility (or worse, refused to consider it). A surer sign of unrealistic naivety and immaturity I cannot imagine.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
