Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Prenuptial Disagreement
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
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.)
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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!
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
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
-------------------- And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
If you aren't willing to put your marriage before your career, don't get married.
-------------------- Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible. -Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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 ]
-------------------- "Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Erroneous Monk: I'm starting to think I was very lucky not to have had any assets when I got married.
As was I
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?
-------------------- Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lily pad
Shipmate
# 11456
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Sloppiness is not caring. Fussiness is caring about the wrong things. With thanks to Adeodatus!
Posts: 2468 | From: Truly Canadian | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- "Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- "The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help. Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
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.
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.
-------------------- Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible. -Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
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
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).
-------------------- And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- "The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help. Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
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 ]
-------------------- Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
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 ] [ 12. April 2012, 16:16: Message edited by: Erroneous Monk ]
-------------------- And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
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 ) 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.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- "He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible. -Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by 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.
-------------------- Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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 ) caused the affected partner to become seriously violent towards the other. I note that such violence is on your list.
-------------------- Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
I always tell my children, hope for the best but plan for the worst. We don't live in cloud cuckoo land.
-------------------- Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Tortuf: The things that pass for common sense on these boards.
Thanks for my shiny new signature, Tortuf--something tells me it will remain appropriate for a long, long time.
-------------------- How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety. \_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible. -Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PerkyEars
slightly distracted
# 9577
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 532 | From: Bristol | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible. -Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- "Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- "Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
OK
Trin and fiancee should get married when Trin's fiancee trusts Trin enough to get married without a prenuptial agreement.
-------------------- Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible. -Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
Beeswax Altar, I'm slightly curious...have you ever read a pre-nup?
-------------------- How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- "Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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?
-------------------- "Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
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...
-------------------- How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
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.
-------------------- Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible. -Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|