Thread: Prenuptial Disagreement Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=022984
Posted by Trin (# 12100) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
Both of you, sadly. That's just the world we live in these days.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Trin (# 12100) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Wm Dewy (# 16712) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
And way to totally miss my point. "Planning on divorce" is nothing you can say with any confidence.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
The two situations where a pre-nuptial agreement should be considered a necessity (both of which have been touched on briefly already):


Remember, pre-nuptial agreements can also deal with the issue of unexpected early death as well as divorce.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
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):


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.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
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".
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Episcoterian (# 13185) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Trin (# 12100) on :
 
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...
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
I'd listen to him.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
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...
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
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."
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :
 
You might find this article of interest.

Personally, I wouldn't go into a marriage without one.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
I thought the doctrine of original sin required me to think myself an untrustworthy bastard.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I thought the doctrine of original sin required me to think myself an untrustworthy bastard.
[Overused] [Overused] [Overused]

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
If you think your fiancee might be a gold digger, don't get married.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Every couple brings to a marriage attitudes and opinions formed by their families which they may never have thought through independently, because they have always been surrounded by people with the same opinion. This is probably especially so with regards to money, because most people don't have full and frank discussions of their finances with their friends.

Can you step back and discuss this dispassionately, not as a deal breaker regarding your marriage, but as an exploration of how and why you have reached whatever age you are with such different views.

It might be that this is a deal breaker. But it might be that once you've explored each others views, you can each appreciate where the other is coming from.

(My gt gt grandfather, a moderately successful saddler, went bankrupt when the City of Glasgow Bank failed in 1878; this coloured my family's attitude to money. It all made perfect sense when you heard the sad tale of overnight impoverishment, but no sense at all if you didn't.)
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
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.
Or, in the case of a family-owned business, suggesting that the solution is to quit your job!
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
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.
Or, in the case of a family-owned business, suggesting that the solution is to quit your job!
Putting shares into trust wouldn't require anyone to quit a job
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
If you aren't willing to put your marriage before your career, don't get married.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
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.
That's helpful. I hadn't seen it from that point of view.

I'm starting to think I was very lucky not to have had any assets when I got married.

That said, when we bought the flat together, we bought it in my sole name. This is because my old man was at the time a partner in a small firm, so of course any claim against the firm could have resulted in loss of his personal assets, even if the claim had nothing to do with any work carried out by him.

In order to do this, he had to give to me the equity in the flat he was selling - I owned nothing. When we were sorting out the paperwork, the solicitor said he had to advise my old man that it was unwise to transfer the value to me unprotected. The Old Man thanked him for the advice but went ahead with it anyway.

It's worked for us so far. But that doesn't mean it would be right for someone else.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
So who should get married, BA? From what you've said on this thread it seems that you think only those who know, with 100% certainty, that they and/or their partner will always and forever more remain completely compatible with one another, and that they and/or their partner will never suffer any life-changing illness, injury or misfortune that might change their character or personality, should wed.

Trouble is, that's nobody. [Roll Eyes] [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Or, in the case of a family-owned business, suggesting that the solution is to quit your job!
Putting shares into trust wouldn't require anyone to quit a job
If we're talking about a small family operation (e.g. three brothers running a shop) that's not a realistic option.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
fwiw, I married into "family money". We didn't have a prenup, but my father-in-law did put his estate into a trust benefitting his grandchildren, so that I will never directly benefit. This was done long before I met my husband so I don't take it personally, although I couldn't blame him if it did-- I had been married and divorced when I met my husband. And the trust is paying for my children's education (including my child from that previous marriage, who my husband adopted), so that I am free to spend my paycheck on other things w/o having to worry about saving for college. All in all, can't complain.

And we've been married now 21+ years.

[ 12. April 2012, 15:56: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Or, in the case of a family-owned business, suggesting that the solution is to quit your job!
Putting shares into trust wouldn't require anyone to quit a job
If we're talking about a small family operation (e.g. three brothers running a shop) that's not a realistic option.
I'd see it as simpler than having a prenup. But then I'm an accountant. [Smile]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I'm starting to think I was very lucky not to have had any assets when I got married.
As was I [Big Grin]

A house is a good example of where a prenup can work, though. If one person already owns a house outright and has been living there for years, and then marries and moves their partner in, then all is well for as long as the marriage lasts. But if it all falls apart, should that person lose their home or should they be able to continue to live in it?

Without a prenup, that person would probably be forced to sell their house so that the value could be split between them and their ex-partner. Does that seem fair to anyone here?
 
Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on :
 
Why feel threatened by a pre-nup? It makes perfect sense to me. Then again, I've never been married. But to me it would show that my future spouse was grounded in reality. Call me naïve but I would feel far more secure making the promises required of marriage with a well prepared and mutually agreed to pre-nup.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
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?
Yes.

Another way to look at the OP would be to ask, "why is it that my fiancee feels she needs to protect herself financially?"-- iow, "how have I failed to build trust?" Are there areas where you have let her down, made her believe you might be less than trustworthy? Have you demonstrated that you are in it for the long haul? Or are there broken places in her heart from past experiences that make it difficult for her to trust even the most honorable man-- something deserving perhaps your compassion, rather than condemnation?

Trust is a dance. It is built over time, through trial and error, through experience. If you are not there yet, that doesn't mean you never will be.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
My gut reaction upon reading of your situation is the same as Beeswax's. But of course, this situation is only part of the relationship between you & your fiancee, about which we otherwise know nothing.

I hope that you are going to premarital counseling together, and that you bring up this issue, and your discomfort with the idea of a pre-nup.

I can say that if I were to sit on a marriage tribunal and discovered that the couple had a pre-nuptial agreement, it would be a strong weight toward a conclusion of nullity for me.

Good luck to both of you. [Votive]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Another way to look at the OP would be to ask, "why is it that my fiancee feels she needs to protect herself financially?"-- iow, "how have I failed to build trust?"
It's not that simple. People change over time, especially over a lifetime. Someone who is as trustworthy as it is humanly possible to be right now may, in twenty years, prove to be otherwise. We cannot blithely assume that we know exactly how we - or our partners - will react to challenges, trials or temptations we have not yet encountered.
 
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
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.
I'd listen to him.
Where your treasure is, there will be your divorce settlement.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So who should get married, BA? From what you've said on this thread it seems that you think only those who know, with 100% certainty, that they and/or their partner will always and forever more remain completely compatible with one another, and that they and/or their partner will never suffer any life-changing illness, injury or misfortune that might change their character or personality, should wed.

Trouble is, that's nobody. [Roll Eyes] [Disappointed]
Yes, I expect people to keep their marriage vows. Forgiveness and sacrifice are part of making a marriage work. If you aren't prepared for that, don't get married. Few things justify divorce (physical abuse, real mental abuse, serial infidelity, abandonment...). Every last one of those are things in the power of one or both of the couple to prevent. If you suspect your spouse may be capable of one of those things or you think your spouse will change, don't get married.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I'm starting to think I was very lucky not to have had any assets when I got married.
As was I [Big Grin]

A house is a good example of where a prenup can work, though. If one person already owns a house outright and has been living there for years, and then marries and moves their partner in, then all is well for as long as the marriage lasts. But if it all falls apart, should that person lose their home or should they be able to continue to live in it?

Without a prenup, that person would probably be forced to sell their house so that the value could be split between them and their ex-partner. Does that seem fair to anyone here?
I see what you're driving at. But do you then say that partner who doesn't own the house should be able to save some of their income into a ring-fenced "house" pot, protected by a pre-nup, so that if the marriage breaks down they'll have some protected capital to invest in a property? Or do they have to risk all their income by sharing it, knowing they'll be homeless if the marriage breaks down?

For me, the better way is for both to take a risk on each other (and that's what we did in practice).
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Another way to look at the OP would be to ask, "why is it that my fiancee feels she needs to protect herself financially?"-- iow, "how have I failed to build trust?"
It's not that simple. People change over time, especially over a lifetime. Someone who is as trustworthy as it is humanly possible to be right now may, in twenty years, prove to be otherwise. We cannot blithely assume that we know exactly how we - or our partners - will react to challenges, trials or temptations we have not yet encountered.
Of course, Martin--that's why it's called a commitment. Neither person truly knows what lies ahead of them, or what stresses they'll be put under. The vows are a formalized promise that despite what may happen, they are committed to being together and supporting each other, working through their problems; and the sacramental character of matrimony is intended to grant them both the grace to live up to those promises.

Of course it doesn't always work out, but I'm not sure the faith supports crossing your fingers behind your back, or setting up an escape clause beforehand. It seems like bad faith to me.
 
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
You might find this article of interest.

Personally, I wouldn't go into a marriage without one.
Interesting how her concerns are all about the effect on the children, while all the advice is about money and assets.
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A house is a good example of where a prenup can work, though. If one person already owns a house outright and has been living there for years, and then marries and moves their partner in, then all is well for as long as the marriage lasts. But if it all falls apart, should that person lose their home or should they be able to continue to live in it?

Without a prenup, that person would probably be forced to sell their house so that the value could be split between them and their ex-partner. Does that seem fair to anyone here?
Yes, if the other person sold his/her house and they both spent the money from that on holidays, consumables, cars and home improvements.

eta - essentially, what Erroneous Monk said (X-posted)

[ 12. April 2012, 16:15: Message edited by: QLib ]
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A house is a good example of where a prenup can work, though. If one person already owns a house outright and has been living there for years, and then marries and moves their partner in, then all is well for as long as the marriage lasts. But if it all falls apart, should that person lose their home or should they be able to continue to live in it?

Without a prenup, that person would probably be forced to sell their house so that the value could be split between them and their ex-partner. Does that seem fair to anyone here?
Yes, if the other person sold his/her house and they both spent the money from that on holidays, consumables, cars and home improvements.
Or, as I said above, the other person shared what they would otherwise have spent on their own house.

{Aaaargh! x-posted with QLib in a war of the x-posts [Smile] ]

[ 12. April 2012, 16:16: Message edited by: Erroneous Monk ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Few things justify divorce (physical abuse, real mental abuse, serial infidelity, abandonment...). ... If you suspect your spouse may be capable of one of those things or you think your spouse will change, don't get married.
I do not suspect that she would do any of those things now (we are, of course, all capable of them). But, as I keep saying, how the hell can I possibly know that she won't suddenly start one day in the future? People change. They really, genuinely, do.

How on earth can you say with any certainty at all that your spouse won't ever change? All it takes is one nasty fall, or one mugging gone wrong, or one mental illness that neither of you knew she was susceptible to, and her entire personality could change. I've seen the latter happen. It's horrible, and I hope nobody ever has to live through it. But people do.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
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.
Yeah. Because untrustworthy bastards always put the welfare of other people first, don't they.

And why do you think it should always be about loving money? It could be simple fear of the future. In some cases (I'm not going to speak to the OP specifically [Paranoid] ) a partner might end up getting beaten half to death by their spouse; in which case losing their rightful goods in a divorce would be a serious aggravation of an already unfair situation. I'm not a fan of pre-nups, but I understand them.

They might speak of lack of trust, even lack of love or insight; and arguably they might make a couple feel more 'comfortable' about the prospect of divorce; but they might also speak of practical common sense, and safety for a vulnerable person.

And what's all this high moral ground stuff, anyway? Pre-nups have been around for ever. Ever heard of a dowry? A 'jointure'? Couples with titles, money, land and possessions, as a matter of course, were always drawing up agreements as to what was to happen should the marriage end, either in dissolution or death, but also as to how property and money should be disposed during marriage. Eg, whether or not a relict was permitted to live in what had been her own house, should her husband die; how much of her 'own' money should remain hers even while married, and how much accessible to her husband etc.

Pre-nuptial arrangements for a woman's (or man's) re-marriage were often provided for, in case of widowing, to ensure fairness to parties involved, children born etc; before even the first marriage had taken place.

The only main difference between then and now is that divorce was not often an option as it is now - but the pre-nup arrangements were certainly there and were of crucial significance before anyone ever got to the altar.

If ever you want an entertaining read of your typical Victorian pre-nup discussions check out Anthony Trollope.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I see what you're driving at. But do you then say that partner who doesn't own the house should be able to save some of their income into a ring-fenced "house" pot, protected by a pre-nup, so that if the marriage breaks down they'll have some protected capital to invest in a property? Or do they have to risk all their income by sharing it, knowing they'll be homeless if the marriage breaks down?
I would absolutely expect the prenup to make provision for both partners. But where it's important to one of them to keep the house itself I don't see what harm there is in ensuring they get to do so.

It's like when my parents drew up their will, and asked my brother and I to tell them of any items we specifically wanted for ourselves, as opposed to trying to divvy them up at the time or sell the lot and split the profit down the middle. There's no harm in making such provisions.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
You might find this article of interest.

Personally, I wouldn't go into a marriage without one.
Interesting how her concerns are all about the effect on the children, while all the advice is about money and assets.
It's by 'Team Practical', what did you expect? Almost the first thing stated is that pre-nups don't help to allay the fears of divorce. As for the effect on children, I feel that the pre-nup could provide a limit to the safety net in the event of divorce, which might even keep the marriage going through minor difficulties.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Mental illness, in and of itself, is not a reason to get a divorce. All that stuff about sickness and health. Go to Vegas. Visit the justice of the peace. Make up your own vows. You can promise as little as you want and put a time limit on it.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Of course it doesn't always work out, but I'm not sure the faith supports crossing your fingers behind your back, or setting up an escape clause beforehand.
It's not "an escape clause". A prenup would only ever be activated after the irreconcilable breakdown of the marriage, by which point an escape clause is spectacularly redundant.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Mental illness, in and of itself, is not a reason to get a divorce.
The example I saw (and am still seeing, for that matter [Frown] ) caused the affected partner to become seriously violent towards the other. I note that such violence is on your list.
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
I always tell my children, hope for the best but plan for the worst. We don't live in cloud cuckoo land.
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
Pre-nup or not, I've never seen anyone at the altar that thought their marriage would end in divorce. I'm not talking about Hollywood stars getting drunk in Vegas here--I'm talking about average people standing up in Church and then having a big party with friends and relations.

Like it or not, though, about half of those couples are wrong. When a divorce does take place, a well-crafted pre-nuptial agreement can save a lot of heartache and keep the lawyer's bills smaller.

So I am--generally--in favor of them when there is a significant inequality of assets before marriage. HOWEVER--if you decide to sign it, you will want your own, independent lawyer to review it. Someone working for you can help you come to terms with the whole process a lot better than nameless strangers on a bulletin board.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
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?
Because no sacramental marriage ever breaks down?

I thought it was only Calvinists who believed in irresistible grace - and they tend not to believe marriage is a sacrament.
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
The things that pass for common sense on these boards.
[Overused]
Thanks for my shiny new signature, Tortuf--something tells me it will remain appropriate for a long, long time.
 
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :
 
I will chime in as someone whose been married for nearly 30 years and known my spouse for nearly 34. We got married rather young, and we had nothing. Cardboard boxes to serve as dresser drawers, mattress on the floor. There was nothing to even consider a prenup for. Even if it had been something we'd known about. In that situation, practically speaking, if we'd ever split, the assets would reasonably be split.

However, I have known people who have either married for the first time, after the deaths of spouses or from divorce, and they have dependants. There is a responsibility to arrange to support the children (or elderly parents) that must be addressed. A prenup does not necessarily need to be the means, but something so that the responsibilities can be met.

Case in point: a fellow I know father died. Mum remarried, and developed dementia. Step father's children became the centre of the couple's family life, and my friend was shut out. When she died, the step father distributed the assets to his children and my friend had to struggle as a 20 year old with essentially nothing. It would seem that an agreement between the mother and step father might have protected him and he could have started his education and own family earlier etc., and not been psychologically scarred by the whole ordeal.

Thus a blanket rule from a church, minister or priest that 100% of the time a prenup is wrong seems rigid and may ill-serve a couple and family pastorally. Certainly we can agree that styaing married forever is the mark at which we should aim. Humans, unfortunately are known to sin and miss hitting the mark.

I do know that when my children are married and want to, say, buy a house, and we have the money to assist in the down payment, we'll have a proper legal document that shows the amount that we can call in if their marriages fall apart. I am not into simply gifting money to ex-spouses. They show every sign of following in their parents' path of committing to one person early in life at the time when they've nothing. How that traditional model applies to everyone however, is beyond me.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
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?
Because no sacramental marriage ever breaks down?

I thought it was only Calvinists who believed in irresistible grace - and they tend not to believe marriage is a sacrament.
Define the breakdown of sacramental marriage. A prenup is basically going into a marriage while at the same time planning for its failure. It makes a mockery of the sacrament and virtually assumes marriage and all the other sacraments aren't efficacious. I will have nothing to do with it.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Define the breakdown of sacramental marriage. A prenup is basically going into a marriage while at the same time planning for its failure. It makes a mockery of the sacrament and virtually assumes marriage and all the other sacraments aren't efficacious. I will have nothing to do with it.
Given that a couple married in a church is statistically just as likely to divorce as a couple married in a civil ceremony (more likely for couples married by particular churches in the American South) I don't think we have to just assume the sacraments "aren't efficacious", we've got evidence they're not efficacious.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Mental illness, in and of itself, is not a reason to get a divorce. All that stuff about sickness and health. Go to Vegas. Visit the justice of the peace. Make up your own vows. You can promise as little as you want and put a time limit on it.
Some people do, of course. But many aren't as cynical or as dismissive about their marriages as you seem to be, or assume everyone else must be. Pre nups lend themselves to abuse, of course, but then so does marriage.
 
Posted by PerkyEars (# 9577) on :
 
I think you know in your gut that you are right. I don't think asking for a prenup indicates that someone is planning to divorce or commit adultery - that's not how people think. But I do think that this issue exposes some potential challenges. Differences in view on what marriage means, and on how to arrange finances are important matters that can lead to divorce down the line. Someone taking their family's opinion more seriously than that of their future spose (if that's the case here) is a serious potential problem for the marriage.

Some marriages survive worse challenges starting out, and some break down when there's apparently more agreement to start off with, so noone can tell you here that your fiance is right or wrong for you. Only you can decide what's a deal breaker.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
It makes a mockery of the sacrament and virtually assumes marriage and all the other sacraments aren't efficacious. I will have nothing to do with it.
TEC to my knowledge permits divorce, which would suggest (on your logic) that your own church assumes the sacraments are not efficacious. If you want to have nothing to do with it, I suggest you become Roman Catholic.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
The decision to marry a couple is up to the priest. TEC allows remarriage with the permission of the diocesan bishop. Bishop doesn't have to allow any marriage to take place in which one of the partners has been divorced. Divorce is sometimes a necessary evil but it should be the last resort. I don't believe it is the last resort very often. Before a bishop permits a divorced person to remarry in TEC, the bishop should have some reason to expect the second marriage will last longer than the first.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Exhibit A: Newton Leroy Gingrich.

Married Jackie Battley in a Baptist Church in Columbus, GA on June 19,1962.

Married Marianne Ginther in a Lutheran Church in Leetonia, OH on August 8, 1981.

Married Callista Bisek at the Morrison House Hotel in Alexandria, VA on August 18, 2000.

Note that Mr. Gingrich's two church-sanctified marriages failed (rather spectacularly), while his civilly-contracted marriage is (at the moment) still intact. This would seem to indicate that, at least in this particular case, having a church-sanctified marriage is counter-efficacious.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Another way to look at the OP would be to ask, "why is it that my fiancee feels she needs to protect herself financially?"-- iow, "how have I failed to build trust?"
It's not that simple. People change over time, especially over a lifetime. Someone who is as trustworthy as it is humanly possible to be right now may, in twenty years, prove to be otherwise. We cannot blithely assume that we know exactly how we - or our partners - will react to challenges, trials or temptations we have not yet encountered.
Absolutely true.

But my point was that beeswax and others here seem to be assuming bad faith on the fiancee's part here for not being willing to blindly trust, when in fact, trust must be built and earned over time. If trust is absent at this particular juncture, there are all sorts of possibilities why that may be the case-- and that's the crux that should be examined-- rather than focusing on the prenup, which is most likely a symptom rather than the cause.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Exhibit A: Newton Leroy Gingrich.

Married Jackie Battley in a Baptist Church in Columbus, GA on June 19,1962.

Married Marianne Ginther in a Lutheran Church in Leetonia, OH on August 8, 1981.

Married Callista Bisek at the Morrison House Hotel in Alexandria, VA on August 18, 2000.

Note that Mr. Gingrich's two church-sanctified marriages failed (rather spectacularly), while his civilly-contracted marriage is (at the moment) still intact. This would seem to indicate that, at least in this particular case, having a church-sanctified marriage is counter-efficacious.
First wife Jackie-- who put him through college and postgrad then was famously dumped for wife #2 when she became inconveniently old/sick-- would have done very well to have gotten a prenup.

Hindsight is 20/20 an' all that.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
OK

Trin and fiancee should get married when Trin's fiancee trusts Trin enough to get married without a prenuptial agreement.
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
Beeswax Altar, I'm slightly curious...have you ever read a pre-nup?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
OK

Trin and fiancee should get married when Trin's fiancee trusts Trin enough to get married without a prenuptial agreement.
Probably. Which requires looking closely-- with compassion and honesty-- at why she can't, or thinks she can't.

Conversely, one could also say Trin and fiancee should get married when Trin trusts his fiancee enough to get married with a prenuptial agreement.

But the bottom line is really about trust, not prenups.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Exhibit A: Newton Leroy Gingrich.

Married Jackie Battley in a Baptist Church in Columbus, GA on June 19,1962.

Married Marianne Ginther in a Lutheran Church in Leetonia, OH on August 8, 1981.

Married Callista Bisek at the Morrison House Hotel in Alexandria, VA on August 18, 2000.
Anyone else notice that wife #4 should be arriving in about 7 years?
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The decision to marry a couple is up to the priest. TEC allows remarriage with the permission of the diocesan bishop. Bishop doesn't have to allow any marriage to take place in which one of the partners has been divorced. Divorce is sometimes a necessary evil but it should be the last resort. I don't believe it is the last resort very often. Before a bishop permits a divorced person to remarry in TEC, the bishop should have some reason to expect the second marriage will last longer than the first.
And if the bishop refuses to allow a divorcee to remarry, is that because s/he believes the original marriage is still in place (i.e. the Catholic view), or simply because (as your concluding sentence suggests) the divorcee has proved themselves untrustworthy?

The latter case would seem to suggest a belief that the sacramental grace was ineffective.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
This thread reminds me of an article about a divorce lawyer who specialises in prenups. She's a bit cynical about them:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-1357273/Prenuptial-agreements-After-Radmacher-divorce-insiders-guide-premarital-c ontracts.html
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
This thread reminds me of an article about a divorce lawyer who specialises in prenups. She's a bit cynical about them ...
100% of the divorce lawyers I've met (about three...) are completely cynical about the Institution of Marriage as well. I think it's just part of the job...
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
This thread reminds me of an article about a divorce lawyer who specialises in prenups. She's a bit cynical about them:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-1357273/Prenuptial-agreements-After-Radmacher-divorce-insiders-guide-premarital-c ontracts.html
Sounds like they are working out a divorce settlement before even getting married. Sometimes sports writers compare an athlete signing a long term deal with a team with marriage. Sounds like marriage is becoming like a sport. We need marriage agents. A good marriage agent would make sure their client gets a substantial signing bonus before signing the prenuptial agreement and that the agreement contains performance bonuses as well as guaranteed money. I'd hope that a no trade clause would be unnecessary but better to be safe than sorry I suppose.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
This thread reminds me of an article about a divorce lawyer who specialises in prenups. She's a bit cynical about them ...
100% of the divorce lawyers I've met (about three...) are completely cynical about the Institution of Marriage as well. I think it's just part of the job...
A divorce lawyer specialising in pre-nups? Isn't that like putting a fox in charge of the henhouse?

I expect pre-nups are like marriages, and divorces for that matter. Some are good, some are so-so and some are downright bad. I'd get a nice boring contract lawyer to draw up a pre-nuptial if I was ever to need one.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
This thread reminds me of an article about a divorce lawyer who specialises in prenups. She's a bit cynical about them ...
100% of the divorce lawyers I've met (about three...) are completely cynical about the Institution of Marriage as well. I think it's just part of the job...
It wasn't until this thread that thinking about it, I realised that only one of my friends and former university colleagues has ever been through a divorce. But I remember him telling me that the worst thing he ever did was to persuade his wife (as was) - with himself - to be guided by a lawyer in trying to sort out their marriage.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Going back a bit - but -
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
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?
Do I think that people change their behaviour if they can minimise the downside risk of doing anything? Absolutely.

Car insurance? Excesses and no-claims bonuses are there for a purpose - to control certain claims behaviour. And only an idiot - or a 17 year old male - would not change their behaviour faced with insurance premiums escalating into the thousands.

House insurance? Mine also has a no-claims bonus, an excess, and variable premiums according to claims record (see above).

My point here is that the thing insured against is not always the thing that changes. The whole point of the law of unexpected consequences is to point this one fact out. People actually change what they do to benefit themselves according to whatever framework is established.

But in any event, this is of minor relevance. Marriage is (or is supposed to be) one of the most major commitments you make in your life. If you want a realistic parallel, you need to find something of major importance. I don't know what that would be (it's up to you), but I would observe that most of the last financial crash was brought about by the effects of asymmetrical risk and moral hazard. Banks too big to fail, monstrous commitment to derivatives, vast bonuses to reward success but no penalty for failure etc. etc. That can affect whole economies and societies.

Marriage, whatever else it is, is intended to be the establishment of a new reality distinct from what went before, and that includes how you manage your resources, including the economic.
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Anyone else notice that wife #4 should be arriving in about 7 years?
Certainly. 19 years seems to be the limit for ol' Newt.

Of course, that's about enough time for them to not be the young thing they were when he married them- time to find a newer, flashier model. Spouse-as-fashion-statement... [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
I used to know a rather insane young man who flitted from partner to partner every few months. He was personally without means (although his parents were well off). At first he would be so charming, forthcoming, warm, and appreciative. But gradually he would begin to make increasingly irresponsible material demands and, if his lover showed any hesitation, complain that he or she wasn't committed enough to the relationship. Finally he would move on, armed with plenty of chips on his shoulder about how poorly the person he had just left had treated him.

If someone like this is going to (1) sweep you off your feet and then (3) spit you out, it is some consolation if at least you didn't allow them to (2) chew you up first. I'm afraid I can understand a reluctance on the part of the better-off partner to open herself to the risk of such abuse.

On the other hand, in the U.S. the majority of divorces nowadays are initiated by the wife. A woman trying to insulate herself beforehand against taking any economic hit in that event looks suspiciously like one who is already contemplating an eventual breakup.

With little experience, I don't know what to advise. A compromise would be nice, whereby she would lose something but couldn't be left destitute. However, if you suggest this, then you appear to be a gold digger.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
On the other hand, in the U.S. the majority of divorces nowadays are initiated by the wife. A woman trying to insulate herself beforehand against taking any economic hit in that event looks suspiciously like one who is already contemplating an eventual breakup.
The majority of contested divorces, which is an important distinction.
 
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 
Oh dear, Trin. I will preface my posting by saying I do most sincerely feel for you - for both of you, actually, in this situation. This sort of hurt is very real.

quote:
Originally posted by Trin:
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.
I can only theoretically sympathise here, as my situation was very different. When I got married, both my husband and I were very much of the "what's mine is yours and vice versa, all property to be held in common", school of thought, so we did not have this hurdle. On the other hand, it is very easy to be black and white about these things when your total combined assets amount to a small heap of tattered furniture and a load of very expensive textbooks (we got married while at university).

Fast forward quite some number of years and I have to say it doesn't look quite so simple to me anymore. (I am still married, btw), and everything is still owned in common, etc. HOWEVER, if my husband were to expire in some unfortunate way in the very near future, I would find myself in a very different position if I ever contemplated matrimony again. Firstly, I would have two dependents. Secondly, I would be the sole owner of a house in the suburbs. Thirdly, I would know from my own experience that marriage isn't all raindrops and kittens, and from the experiences of my friends that there are many men out there who are a lot less nice than my own. There is no way, given these things, that I would just go 'all in' financially on a hypothetical future marriage, regardless of what anyone had to say on the matter...

quote:
Originally posted by Trin:
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.
Have you actually told her this, in so many words? And would you listen if she tried to explain to you how it looks from her perspective, or are you hurting too much at the moment?

quote:
Originally posted by Trin:
I feel no entitlement to her assets but...[snip]
No. Sorry. You clearly do feel that within the context of a marriage, you do have an entitlement to her assets. Now there are ways in which you can defend that position and clearly there are people on this board who will be in agreement with you, but please be honest with yourself in this matter.

quote:
Originally posted by Trin:
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.
You are not being legislated against. You do not stand to lose a single ability, right, object or asset which you already have at present. As others have pointed out, you do have the option to turn around and walk away here if you really cannot stomach this...and then the hurt will flow the other way, unfortunately. "So", she will say to herself, "so, it really was about the money after all"...

I don't know - I don't know - but if marriage really is a big and very important thing, perhaps she should not hold on so tightly to the things she owns, and put them all on the table. And perhaps you should not hold on so tightly to an issue of principle and instead show your deep love and concern for her by doing what is necessary to ease her fears. To sacrifice something you hold dear - for her. I think, if you can manage to do this, and do it without bitterness, it will have a tremendous impact on the depth of your relationship.

quote:
Originally posted by Trin:
Prior to this, everything was going very nicely.
[Biased] It's a very good thing to have some crap in a relationship before the marriage, I'm sure everyone here will agree... [Biased]
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
Prenuptial agreements can cover death as well as divorce. I ended up benefiting from a situation in my family where one spouse brought some very nice antiques into the marriage; she died before her husband, who was my great-uncle. Neither of them had children, and when the wife died my great-uncle inherited all her assets.

We're not talking large sums of money, but some of the antiques were very fine. My father and his brother were the executors when my great-uncle died; my grandmother was the heir. The executors, with my grandmother's permission, gave the silver to her family. Instead of expressing gratitude, they complained that they should have had everything. I can see their point, but without a prenuptial agreement that's not the way the law works.

I now own some very nice antiques.

Moo
 
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :
 
I find the position "if you have / need a prenup, don't get married, or, I won't marry you in my church" attitude rigid and insenstive.

It reminds me of the issue of women changing or not their last names, which was a big issue back when we got married. (It actually cost to not have a name change back then, and fee if you went with the name change.)

Those of the clergy who've posted that they wouldn't marry a couple who had a prenup, I suspect this is known, and the couple simply wouldn't tell you. I have noticed that premarital counselling is essentially farmed out to programs of so many classes and weeks, and the meetings with the minister or priest are brief and about choosing and organizing the service. I hope you will tell us that if you're rigid about prenup≠marriage that you also provide reassurance that you provide extensive premarital counselling to the couples intending on marriage. I also would like to know what parts of that counselling deal with the inevitable disagreements, possible other pitfalls such as loss of libido (sexual interest) on the part of one or the other, and what directions are discussed and agreed to regarding the problem solving the couple will do.

As for the original poster, please consider consulting with, in my opinion all of, priest or minister, marital or couples' counsellor, prospective in-laws, parents. Have the family meetings facilitated by the clergy. If the clergy is not willing to discuss the issues, dump them at least for this part, and get someone who has some sensitivity and time for you.

If you've planned to marry, there's obviously something positive between you and fiancée. It must be determined how it is that this barrier has emerged, and what must be done about it. I feel for you, and hope you can get whatever you need to steer through it.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
Oh dear, Trin. I will preface my posting by saying I do most sincerely feel for you - for both of you, actually, in this situation. This sort of hurt is very real.
[Overused]

Excellent post, all of it. Thanks.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by no prophet:
I find the position "if you have / need a prenup, don't get married, or, I won't marry you in my church" attitude rigid and insenstive.
Trin finds the position of his fiancee very rigid and insensitive. As to what you feel about my position, I could care less. A couple whose conscience allows them to sign a prenuptial agreement before getting married will have no problem finding a minister to officiate at their wedding. My conscience will not allow me to be the minister at their wedding. Chances are the couple will already be looking elsewhere when I tell them they can't put a unity candle on the high altar.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by no prophet:
I hope you will tell us that if you're rigid about prenup≠marriage that you also provide reassurance that you provide extensive premarital counselling to the couples intending on marriage. I also would like to know what parts of that counselling deal with the inevitable disagreements, possible other pitfalls such as loss of libido (sexual interest) on the part of one or the other, and what directions are discussed and agreed to regarding the problem solving the couple will do.
Missed this

Yes, I do my own premarital counseling. Yes, I deal with all of the inevitable pitfalls of married life. Yes, I get them to talk about how they will handle all of those pitfalls. How much? As much as is required. I take it all very seriously. Why would I expect less of couples wanting to get married than I do of teenagers wanting to be confirmed?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

On the other hand, in the U.S. the majority of divorces nowadays are initiated by the wife. A woman trying to insulate herself beforehand against taking any economic hit in that event looks suspiciously like one who is already contemplating an eventual breakup.
Full disclosure: I'm one of those wives who initiated the divorce. fwiw, "who initiated it" is really just a matter of logistics-- who was the person who actually made an appt with a lawyer, got things together to draw up papers, paid the bill, and got them filed. It says nothing whatsoever about who wanted the divorce, what the reasons for the divorce might be, or even what the eventual division of assets looks like. It simply tells you who took one particular legal action in what is always a long chain of both legal but more so relational actions. In my case, I very much did not want the divorce. But once my husband moved out to move in with his teenage lover, someone had to get the paperwork in order, but paperwork is not generally Peter Pan's long suit.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
Oh dear, Trin. I will preface my posting by saying I do most sincerely feel for you - for both of you, actually, in this situation. This sort of hurt is very real.

....Have you actually told her this, in so many words? And would you listen if she tried to explain to you how it looks from her perspective, or are you hurting too much at the moment?

quote:
Originally posted by Trin:
I feel no entitlement to her assets but...[snip]
No. Sorry. You clearly do feel that within the context of a marriage, you do have an entitlement to her assets. Now there are ways in which you can defend that position and clearly there are people on this board who will be in agreement with you, but please be honest with yourself in this matter.

quote:
Originally posted by Trin:
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.
You are not being legislated against. You do not stand to lose a single ability, right, object or asset which you already have at present. As others have pointed out, you do have the option to turn around and walk away here if you really cannot stomach this...and then the hurt will flow the other way, unfortunately. "So", she will say to herself, "so, it really was about the money after all"...

I don't know - I don't know - but if marriage really is a big and very important thing, perhaps she should not hold on so tightly to the things she owns, and put them all on the table. And perhaps you should not hold on so tightly to an issue of principle and instead show your deep love and concern for her by doing what is necessary to ease her fears. To sacrifice something you hold dear - for her. I think, if you can manage to do this, and do it without bitterness, it will have a tremendous impact on the depth of your relationship.
[Overused]


This. Just this. Scroll on past everything else (including mine) and just read this. The heart here is precisely spot on.
 
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by no prophet:
I hope you will tell us that if you're rigid about prenup≠marriage that you also provide reassurance that you provide extensive premarital counselling to the couples intending on marriage. I also would like to know what parts of that counselling deal with the inevitable disagreements, possible other pitfalls such as loss of libido (sexual interest) on the part of one or the other, and what directions are discussed and agreed to regarding the problem solving the couple will do.
Missed this

Yes, I do my own premarital counseling. Yes, I deal with all of the inevitable pitfalls of married life. Yes, I get them to talk about how they will handle all of those pitfalls. How much? As much as is required. I take it all very seriously. Why would I expect less of couples wanting to get married than I do of teenagers wanting to be confirmed?
You might expect more, and they of the clergy (not singling you out with this), such that all of it is all grist within the mill, which may have to grind a long time, including what the trends are with society and how they influence, and this would include the protection/union of worldly goods. I've been naively surprised at how easily different parts of the church sue each other, clergy and bishops suing each other, barricading churches etc. Once the lawyers have entry in one part of the church, they have entry to others, so it would seem.
 
Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :
 
I would like to add my voice to that of cliffdweller and Fr Weber in appreciation of anoesis's very wise and compassionate post. I have seen a lot of wisdom in my years on the Ship, and this is up there with the best of it. I recommend that trin considers it very carefully.
 
Posted by PerkyEars (# 9577) on :
 
quote:
I don't know - I don't know - but if marriage really is a big and very important thing, perhaps she should not hold on so tightly to the things she owns, and put them all on the table. And perhaps you should not hold on so tightly to an issue of principle and instead show your deep love and concern for her by doing what is necessary to ease her fears. To sacrifice something you hold dear - for her. I think, if you can manage to do this, and do it without bitterness, it will have a tremendous impact on the depth of your relationship.
[Overused]

Where is a 'like' button when I need it?
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
Every person and family has a 'money story' the attitudes and beliefs around money that you grow up with and are deeply ingrained and as individual as each person.
These money stories are one of the most difficult areas of a marriage, whether it is attitudes to credit or savings or prenups they are part of our nurture and we grow up thinking they are the right ones.

She has grown up believing that prenups are what you do, he is horrified by them. It causes the same sort of strife that have huge credit card debts might bring to somebody who has grown up believing debt is to be avoided at all costs.

Having said that I think there is an inequality here, she wants to preserve everything she is bringing into the marriage, whist living of everything that he is bringing into the marriage. Therefore probably depriving him of any chance to build up assets for himself.

It would seem more equitable that if she is ring fencing her assets that he should do so too and she should put an equal amount of money into their day to day living that he does.
 
Posted by Eleanor Jane (# 13102) on :
 
Ooh, tricky issue. I feel for you, Trin.

Like several others here, I married at a time when neither my husband or I had substantial assets. And our view is very much 'all for one and one for all' - we have joint bank accounts and all our money is 'ours'. However, that's just how we do things, and neither here nor there...

I think this issue isn't really about money at all, it's about commitment to the marriage, sharing, values and beliefs from your respective families, even gender issues etc... lots of deeply held and emotionally tricky things to negotiate.

I'd second those saying 'talk to her about how you feel' and I'd add my suggestion to consider finding a good qualified counsellor for a few sessions to help tease out the issues.

This is a tricky issue but hopefully you should be able to negotiate your way through it - if you manage, such give and take bodes well for your marriage.

May God bless you both!
 
Posted by Trin (# 12100) on :
 
A range of views and some insightful advice was what I was looking for and expecting from SoF, so to all who have contributed to helping me think this through - please accept my thanks.
 
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 
I have developed a simple personal metric for this kind of fraught money-and-relationships situation. (Marvin the Martian mentioned wills, another aspect of this.)

 A simple flow chart results from this.

It sounds from the OP like the answer to the first question is "No." So, all other things in the relationship being good, I would proceed. I would try to build a life together with this person, and enjoy what we have together without reference to assets off the table.

The answer to the second question - if Trin and partner will have, or already do have, children - can surely be addressed. If the prenup takes food out of their mouths, do not proceed. The story about the grandfather placing assets in trust to be used for grandchildren's education is an example of a positive way of addressing this.

It is interesting to ponder, "What ought partners to share in marriage?" Theoretically, it's everything at all times. In practice, it's not like that. There is a huge but not a total degree of sharing.
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
It is interesting to ponder, "What ought partners to share in marriage?" Theoretically, it's everything at all times. In practice, it's not like that. There is a huge but not a total degree of sharing.
Inasmuch as the State of Georgia doesn't allow anything that could ever be remotely construed as gay marriage, my partner and I have had to work with lawyers for just about every financial protection we have. Unlike many pre-nups, this is usually more to protect our interests as a couple than our interests as individuals.

After almost 11 years, we have joint accounts and our assets are as merged as we can make them. We weren't without assets when we met, but we were economically pretty equal.

Our first joint account was simply a "household" account. We each funded it from our personal accounts to pay bills, mortgage, etc. After changing banks a few times, we no longer have individual accounts--but it took a few years of living together to reach the point where that was a comfortable and natural step for us.

The fact that we trust each other more after 11 years doesn't mean there was something wrong with our trust level when we had only been together 2 years and each felt the need to maintain some control over our own accounts.

I'm not a lawyer, but even I know that regulations on pre-nups vary from state to state. I would hesitate to make any pronouncements about what might be required in another country. Most states, though, (maybe all...) require that the partners entering a pre-nup have separate lawyers, require a set time period between presentation and signing, and will consider the pre-nup invalid if there is any evidence that there was any coercion. Regardless of the legal perspective, those seem like good ideas from a human perspective.

I seem to recall hearing about pre-nups that "expire" after a set amount of time--thereby recognizing that a split after twenty years of marriage gives each of you a greater call on and responsibility for the other than a split after 18 months.

IF you decide you are open to the possibility of signing a pre-nup, Trin, I would strongly encourage you to make certain a professional who is working for YOU has had a chance to review the document. You might find it revealing to see how well his or her suggested changes are received by your fiancé.

As for anoesis's post above: [Overused]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
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.
Erroneous monk, are you sure that is the RC view? Marital regime is almost universal outside common law derived systems. It would mean that the Roman church did not recognise almost all weddings on the continent of Europe or for that matter South Africa.

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina
And what's all this high moral ground stuff, anyway? Pre-nups have been around for ever. Ever heard of a dowry? A 'jointure'? Couples with titles, money, land and possessions, as a matter of course, were always drawing up agreements as to what was to happen should the marriage end, either in dissolution or death, but also as to how property and money should be disposed during marriage. Eg, whether or not a relict was permitted to live in what had been her own house, should her husband die; how much of her 'own' money should remain hers even while married, and how much accessible to her husband etc.

Pre-nuptial arrangements for a woman's (or man's) re-marriage were often provided for, in case of widowing, to ensure fairness to parties involved, children born etc; before even the first marriage had taken place.

The only main difference between then and now is that divorce was not often an option as it is now - but the pre-nup arrangements were certainly there and were of crucial significance before anyone ever got to the altar.

If ever you want an entertaining read of your typical Victorian pre-nup discussions check out Anthony Trollope.
Well said.

I can't help thinking matters would be greatly improved if (in stead of the present situation) English law expected all couples to agree explicitly what legal regime should govern their property before they get married the way the French do it, with a selection of options and a mild preference that something corresponding to acquests would apply.

For those who are so adamant that there is something wrong with pre-nuptial agreements and regime, do you not understand that they relate to protection from what might otherwise be the consequences of dissolution by death as well as divorce?

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar
My conscience will not allow me to be the minister at their wedding.
Why do you think you are entitled to claim this is a matter on which your conscience has any bearing? Isn't this responsibility a matter for the couples' consciences rather than yours?
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why do you think you are entitled to claim this is a matter on which your conscience has any bearing? Isn't this responsibility a matter for the couples' consciences rather than yours?
Why wouldn't it be a matter in which his conscience has bearing? He's a priest, and as such a representative of the church. If he has scruples about whether he should perform a ceremony, he ought to consider them.

Things may be a little different in the UK, where ministers of the established church are civil servants, but that isn't a consideration in the USA.
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
I had a prenup for my first marriage. First, we had one because the assests were from his family run business and so his family really insisted. All of the children had prenups that protected the business. Secondly, when he left me I was very vulnerable and presented to my lawyer that I would take nothing (even though the prenup was quite generous) because sadlyI thought the gesture would win him back. My lawyer wisely counselled me otherwise and it was good that in that moment I had a document that I had help create when I was in a more balanced state of mind. He asked me to trust that saner person (as opposed to the wreck I was) and I did. The interesting thing about divorce is that it really doesn't take two. One person can decide to leave and despite your views on marriage, divorce, etc you are going to end up divorced anyway.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why do you think you are entitled to claim this is a matter on which your conscience has any bearing? Isn't this responsibility a matter for the couples' consciences rather than yours?
Why wouldn't it be a matter in which his conscience has bearing? He's a priest, and as such a representative of the church. If he has scruples about whether he should perform a ceremony, he ought to consider them.

Things may be a little different in the UK, where ministers of the established church are civil servants, but that isn't a consideration in the USA.
You beat me to it.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Things may be a little different in the UK, where ministers of the established church are civil servants, but that isn't a consideration in the USA.
CofE priests are not civil servants. Neither technically nor metaphorically, though there is a recognized and accepted duty belonging to CofE ministry that the clergy will serve parish members impartially when requested. All CofE priests will know this before they accepted holy orders.

They have a certain freedom of conscience in the exercise of marrying couples when it comes to re-marrying divorcees. Many priests do indeed refuse to re-marry divorcees, and I believe Bishops are expected to respect this.

I've never heard of a CofE priest refusing to marry his parishioners because he doesn't agree with their private arrangements, prior to their wedding, with regard to their own goods. I would be surprized if any priest should even consider it enough of his business to develop such a tender conscience over it, in the first place, that refusal to marry would become a serious option. Though I'd support him in his freedom to express his own objections and theological opinions during marriage prep.

I should also be very interested to know what the action of the Bishop of a priest with this attitude would be, bearing in mind the priest exercises his ministry under the authority of the Ordinary.

[ 13. April 2012, 19:00: Message edited by: Anselmina ]
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
A CofE priest who has responsibility for a parish has the duty to marry his/her parishioners as as long as they meet the requirements. Thye are not allowed to pick and choose who they marry as long as the couple are eligible.
But being the established church wiith certain responsibilites does not, as has been stated above, make one a civil servant.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
The interesting thing about divorce is that it really doesn't take two. One person can decide to leave and despite your views on marriage, divorce, etc you are going to end up divorced anyway.
Yes. It's funny how the "it takes two" fallacy prevails up until the point you find yourself on the wrong end of a Dear John (or Jane) letter.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
A CofE priest who has responsibility for a parish has the duty to marry his/her parishioners as as long as they meet the requirements. Thye are not allowed to pick and choose who they marry as long as the couple are eligible.
Doesn't meeting the requirements or being elegible have something to do with intending to abide by the vows they are about to take? If these include "with all my worldly goods I thee endow" and the priest knows that this is not true, it seems to me that he would have a valid objection.

Perhaps this not, or need not be, among the vows that a given couple takes, and then the situation would be different. As an organist at many different weddings, I know that not all marriage vows are the same. For all we know, Bill Clinton might not actually have vowed to Hillary to forsake all others and keep himself only to her. Lawyers can be very picky about the terms of a contract, and that's quite in order.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
The BCP 1979 does not include the line about endowing with worldly goods. However, should the couple prefer the customary exchange of rings a slight alteration of the liturgy will be necessary. The line, "I give you this ring as a symbol of my vow, and with all that I am, and all that I have, I honor you, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," will need to be changed to read, "I give you this ring as a symbol of my vow, and with all that I am, and all that I have, not covered by the prenuptial agreement, I honor you, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Other than that...

[ 13. April 2012, 23:48: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
As to the percentage of divorces filed by women, who files is part of the negotiation. One friend who did not want a divorce was told either she files or he keeps the kids. He had an income, she didn't (she was in school to get an engineering degree), courts like to give the kids to a stable home, he had a mistress and could claim to offer the kids 2-parent home with income vs a pennyless unemployed one-parent situation.

Chances are he didn't really want the kids anyway, but the Mom didn't dare risk losing the kids, so he got what he wanted -- the ability to claim to be the innocent victim, she "forced divorce on him" by filing. Truth is he had kicked her out of the house and moved his mistress in a year before the filing while she was going to marriage counselors trying to save the marriage. But the official record says she caused the divorce.

I can tell a dozen stories like that and I never was a divorce lawyer. Apparently many a man thinks he has something to gain by making it look like divorce was his wife's idea, not his.

As to pre-nups, there are many kinds, some say for every year of marriage 1% of each person's assets go to the other if there is divorce. Some are in force for ten years then self-destruct. Some just re-state state law so if the law changes the couple are not caught by surprise.

A pre-nup can clarify that both parties have free use of any assets for non-financial purposes -- he has full access to stay in her Paris apartment.

There are ways to divide cost of living -- one couple I know she owns the house, he provides the income for the rest of the cost of life

There has to be discussion of finances, lots of discussion, of all the issues.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
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.
Um...perhaps she and/or her family are familiar with many marriages that turned out very badly, and she simply wants to make sure she's not destitute in case that happens?

ISTM this is like making sure a boat has life jackets, float rings, and life rafts.


Trin, I have no idea whether or not you should be together...but ISTM that the two of you should explore what exactly each expects and wants from marriage. Otherwise, you may pull in different directions, with pain all around.

FWIW, YMMV, etc. and wishes for whatever's best.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Missed the edit window.

To continue the illustration re life preservers, etc.: No one wants to need them, but not having them can lead to tragedies.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
A CofE priest who has responsibility for a parish has the duty to marry his/her parishioners as as long as they meet the requirements. Thye are not allowed to pick and choose who they marry as long as the couple are eligible.
Doesn't meeting the requirements or being elegible have something to do with intending to abide by the vows they are about to take? If these include "with all my worldly goods I thee endow" and the priest knows that this is not true, it seems to me that he would have a valid objection.

Perhaps this not, or need not be, among the vows that a given couple takes, and then the situation would be different. As an organist at many different weddings, I know that not all marriage vows are the same. For all we know, Bill Clinton might not actually have vowed to Hillary to forsake all others and keep himself only to her. Lawyers can be very picky about the terms of a contract, and that's quite in order.
No the eligiblity requirements of the CofE are to do with marriage law, divorce, connections to the church, in which you wish to marry. A church of england clergy person could not refuse to marry somebody because they are concerned that they have a prenuptual agreement,. I suspect in that case the Archbishop of Cantebury would have had to refuse to marry William and Kate!
 
Posted by Ahleal V (# 8404) on :
 
Trin,

My heart feels for you on this matter, as it reflects my own experience.

I was 'planning' on being married by the end of this year. That will no longer happen, for many reasons, but apparently one of them was my strong consideration (but certainly not diehard insistence) on a pre-nup.

In that persons eyes, having a pre-nup invalidated the self-giving neccessary for entering into a sacramental marriage. However, for me (a pretty hardcore sacramentalist if there eve was one!) I was the one who stood to lose considerably without a pre-nup, especially as the courts appear to favour the woman.

However, a CoE priest who knows these things (or should) told me in the last month that there was no reason a priest should (or even could) forbid to marry on the grounds of having a pre-nup.

AV
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
As said upthread Prenups (or settlements/jointuresetc)are traditional in the upper classes. They would protect the family property and any children born of the marriage but they would also give protection to the poorer party

It would ensure that the next heir could not leave the previous widow in penury, or that a husband couldn't use all his wife's money and leave her with nothing. All very sensible.

The thing with these agreements is that
A) they were traditional so that all parties would know to expect the family solicitors to be involved in the marriage agreements. They were part of all families 'money stories'understood and accepted by everyone.
and
B) they would protect the interests of ALL parties not just the one with the wealth. However many prenups that I seem to read about today, are all about protecting the wealth of one party but not about protecting the other partner if things go wrong.

The has to be a mutuality about them or they are not about starting life with an equal partnership and givng your all to each other.They should be about if the marriege breaks up/one partner dies then the each party, and any children have protection. Not if it breaks up I get everything that was mine back again and you get nothing!
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
A CofE priest who has responsibility for a parish has the duty to marry his/her parishioners as as long as they meet the requirements. Thye are not allowed to pick and choose who they marry as long as the couple are eligible.
Doesn't meeting the requirements or being elegible have something to do with intending to abide by the vows they are about to take? If these include "with all my worldly goods I thee endow" and the priest knows that this is not true, it seems to me that he would have a valid objection.

If he did have an objection it must be based on very modern terms, then. The established Church never had a problem with the vast majority of pre-nuptial arrangements which were absolutely insisted upon - and perceived as completely the 'norm' - in the cases of most marriages of landed and monied people down through the centuries.

I grant that the big difference today is that divorce is provided for much more comprehensively - and easily - than it could've been in past years. But in one sense I see this in much the same light, that I - as a priest - would consider giving advice to someone who asks if they should remain with a spouse who's endangering their welfare. I assume a couple preparing to get married intend it to be for life; but I am not going to tell a battered or abused spouse they should remain with their abuser, or even married to their abuser.

For any minister to suddenly begin to acquire the infallible facility for 'knowing', into the future, what are the intentions of people's hearts with regard to a private and legal arrangement between them, sounds a little bit like pure judgementalism to me. Not discernment.

As I said before, I'm not a fan of pre-nups but I understand them.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ahleal V:
In that persons eyes, having a pre-nup invalidated the self-giving necessary for entering into a sacramental marriage.
A friend who could almost retire on his investments married a bankrupt (literally) woman. He later told me she cried because she didn't "feel married" unless all the assets were in both names, so he added her name to the investments. She spent the money freely, declaring she had discovered bankruptcy was no big deal, why not do it again? They would write out a budget together and the next day she would go spend money on things not in the budget. She died young (heart problems) and willed her half of the community property (mostly what had been his money) to her kids from prior marriages.

So the claim "you have to give me all your assets or you aren't self-giving" raises alarm bells in me. Is she (usually she) marrying a person or a bank account.

But to be fair, so many men were selecting a pension based on their one life only, nothing for a surviving wife after his death, that Congress changed the law to mandate joint life unless the wife agreed otherwise. (And now pensions that pay for life instead of a lump sum are rare.) Many a man really does want to keep his assets for himself and not support his wife.

The answer is not pre-nup or none, but lots of serious discussion and whatever paperwork is necessary to cement whatever the mutual agreement is so in a later fight one side can't change the game to the other's harm. I've seen too many joint accounts cleaned out by one spouse before the other knows there's any thought of divorce, no way would I put everything into joint names. Besides, it's more fun to buy a gift for your spouse from your own assets, he isn't paying half of his own gift, he never sees the bill.

If I marry I want a pre-nup so I can hope to built a relationship with his kids instead of resenting me because their inheritance would go to me instead.
 
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :
 
It strikes me as this discussion has progressed that:

When the couple to be married are young and 'just starting out', the idea of no-prenup is fine.

When the couple is mature, has 'had a life' prior to the marriage, they have more responsibilities that just to each other as parties to the marriage such that it may actually be wrong not to have an agreement between then. How do those who propose no "prenups allowed" propose to handle the responsibilities to children already alive? Should the inheritance be given to then in advance of the marriage or something?

How do you handle the business owner who employs others? In many jurisdictions, the business assets would be deemed split between a divorcing couple. So close business, fire or lay off all the employees?

Yes I suppose it potentially planning for the couple to split. But it is just to punish them for this in unequal ways and to punish the other parties to the marriage such as the children from a previous marriage?

Maybe the no-prenup argument leads logically to "no remarriage after divorce" and may also extend to "no remarriage if there are children from a prior marriage whether it was a divorce or not".

Then I get thinking that maybe, like so many things, we have the ideal to which we should aspire, and the need to muddle through for those who are failures at achieving the ideal. I personally have been blessed with a long and happy marriage from youth, though an abject failure at several other things.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
Should the inheritance be given to them in advance of the marriage or something?
A friend of mine, who was burned badly both financially and emotionally by a marriage gone sour and a messy divorce, has provided in his will that if he should die before his children reach age 35, all that he is leaving them will be put in trust until they reach that age. His reasoning is that this might give them time to
experience and recover from one failed relationship. Sensible guy.
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

On the other hand, in the U.S. the majority of divorces nowadays are initiated by the wife. A woman trying to insulate herself beforehand against taking any economic hit in that event looks suspiciously like one who is already contemplating an eventual breakup.
Full disclosure: I'm one of those wives who initiated the divorce. fwiw, "who initiated it" is really just a matter of logistics-- who was the person who actually made an appt with a lawyer, got things together to draw up papers, paid the bill, and got them filed. It says nothing whatsoever about who wanted the divorce, what the reasons for the divorce might be, or even what the eventual division of assets looks like. It simply tells you who took one particular legal action in what is always a long chain of both legal but more so relational actions. In my case, I very much did not want the divorce. But once my husband moved out to move in with his teenage lover, someone had to get the paperwork in order, but paperwork is not generally Peter Pan's long suit.
Exactly.

Peter Pan might also be trying to maintain "plausible deniability". "Well, SHE filed ... not little innocent ME".

(FWIW, I've seen it from the "other direction" as well.)
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
If I marry I want a pre-nup so I can hope to built a relationship with his kids instead of resenting me because their inheritance would go to me instead.
As pointed out above, for UK purposes, this is a complete redherring. Your fiance would settle the assets that are due to his children on them, in trust, and they would not, therefore be marital assets.

There would, therefore, be no need for a prenup.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
If I marry I want a pre-nup so I can hope to built a relationship with his kids instead of resenting me because their inheritance would go to me instead.
As pointed out above, for UK purposes, this is a complete redherring. Your fiance would settle the assets that are due to his children on them, in trust, and they would not, therefore be marital assets.

There would, therefore, be no need for a prenup.
Putting everything into a trust (not everything can go to a trust!) can be expensive. Trusts in USA pay (last I heard) a higher tax rate on income than an individual pays.

A pre-nup makes more sense to me, especially as it can build in things like gradually reducing control of assets as marriage years increase.

But no matter what the vehicle, the couple with severely unequal assets need to discuss in detail so one doesn't feel ripped off or the other doesn't feel like a dependent child or walking on eggshells about spending any money. In any marriage there can be severe disagreements about money that need to be worked out.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trin:
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?
I just wanted to go back to the OP to echo advice given upthread by others that this needs careful and sensitive discussion. ISTM that there are (at least) two major issues that need to be aired between you. One is the whole question of the possible failure of the marriage and how the two of you relate to that. This is obviously a potentially painful and sensitive discussion. The other is the question of assets and fairness. I think it may be quite important to tackle the two issues separately and not let them merge into each other.

As far as the first issue is concerned people come to marriage from different places and with different backgrounds and experience. So your fiancée's "common sense about possible break up" becomes your "planning for a divorce". She may not easily understand why you find it such an emotionally painful discussion, while you find it hard to see how she can be so unfeeling. Somewhere you have to get to a place the feelings of both of you about that can be discussed openly without undue heat - and it may possibly be something you will together need help with.

Turning to the second issue, ISTM that it is inherently unbalanced if someone who brings capital, but little or no income to the pool of assets benefits from sharing the income, but declines to share the capital. So if a pre-nup is the way you need to go forward, then some sort of sliding scale over time might be appropriate to reflect your greater contribution to the shared assets as time goes on.

Part of the ethos of marriage is expressed in the words spoken at the exchange of rings. The contemporary CofE service has "All that I am I give to you, and all that I have I share with you, within the love of God…" I suspect that part of the discussion you need to have is about how what you agree between yourselves gives substance to those words.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
Should the inheritance be given to them in advance of the marriage or something?
A friend of mine, who was burned badly both financially and emotionally by a marriage gone sour and a messy divorce, has provided in his will that if he should die before his children reach age 35, all that he is leaving them will be put in trust until they reach that age. His reasoning is that this might give them time to
experience and recover from one failed relationship. Sensible guy.
Though in English law, if all the beneficiaries of the trust are of legal age of maturity and not subject to disability, they can agree together to wind up the trust - notwithstanding the settlor's intent to postpone their receipt of the trust funds: Saunders v Vautier (1841) EWHC Ch J82.
 
Posted by Trin (# 12100) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Turning to the second issue, ISTM that it is inherently unbalanced if someone who brings capital, but little or no income to the pool of assets benefits from sharing the income, but declines to share the capital.
This apparent imbalance has been mentioned in the course of our discussions, and she correctly points out that a stay-at-home mum* is usually considered to be have fairly earned her half of her husband's income in caring full time for their children.
*(No children in the picture yet, but we're both glad for her to take on the roll.)

[ 16. April 2012, 16:38: Message edited by: Trin ]
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
Yes, that's fair enough (IMHO) though the place/impact of children ought to be part of a properly drawn pre-nuptial agreement, I would have thought. E.g. some of 'her' capital ought to be regarded as available for children of the marriage. Suppose there was a divorce and it was not she who ended up with custody of the children.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
If I marry I want a pre-nup so I can hope to built a relationship with his kids instead of resenting me because their inheritance would go to me instead.
As pointed out above, for UK purposes, this is a complete redherring. Your fiance would settle the assets that are due to his children on them, in trust, and they would not, therefore be marital assets.

There would, therefore, be no need for a prenup.
It seems to me that you are splitting hairs. All you've said is that there are two possible legal avenues to achieve similar results. But both are trying to do the same thing, for the same motive, with the same contingency (divorce) in mind. So why would the trust option be morally superior to a pre-nup? How is it any less "planning for divorce" to set up a trust to benefit your children in the event of a divorce than it is to set up a pre-nup to do the same?

A lawyer could, I assume, advise about the pros/cons of these two possible actions, based on your own particular circumstances/ legal jurisdiction. But morally speaking they seem pretty much the same.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
Everyone who marries has what is in effect a pre-nup. They have a de facto agreement that in the event of divorce, their assets will be divided up according to the prevailing law that applies in their jurisdiction at the time of their divorce.

Of course, they may not think those rules (whatever they turn out to be) are especially fair, or relevant to their particular situation, and they may well have wholly misleading beliefs about what the law is likely to say, but, nonetheless, by the mere fact of getting married, they place themselves at the mercy of those laws.

Why is it objectionable for those people who suspect that those laws will not do what the couple mutually agree is just and fair. to enter into an agreement which will? The choice isn't between provision for divorce and no provision at all. There are going to be some rules that apply to your divorce whether you like it or not. The choice is between provision for divorce on principles that are agreed, rather than on principles that are imposed.

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I can say that if I were to sit on a marriage tribunal and discovered that the couple had a pre-nuptial agreement, it would be a strong weight toward a conclusion of nullity for me.
I'm surprised that no one has pointed out what an excellent reason this is to get a pre-nup.

There is, after all, no call for a religious tribunal to rule on nullity while the relationship lasts, and for all social, religious and legal purposes, a putatively valid Catholic marriage serves perfectly well. It's only after a marriage has well and truly failed that anyone cares to investigate whether it was null and void, and at that stage it is in everyone's interests to conclude that it is: children are still legitimate, civil divorce can still apply, but both parties are free from lasting constraints, and can re-marry and remain Catholics in good standing. No prudent Catholic should marry without one, if you are correct.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0