Elaine Nelson

President Reagan was famously know for saying "Trust, but verify."

One may trust in God, but the new married partner is not God, so there begins the confusion.  We may trust that we will not get sick, have an accident, or die, but considerate people carry health insurance, accident insurance, and life insurance to mitigate the terrific costs of such a catastrophe.

It is quite amazing that, seeing the terrible problems left for your mother that you are so opposed to prenuptial agreements.  It indicates that you trust, by signing a legal document, for marriage, do you not?  Why not refuse the marriage license and simply live together?  That is a legal encumbrance taken, isn't it?

What about older couples who marry, and have other children who should be taken care of legally?  What about property and how it should be disposed of in case of either death or divorce?  Is it not sensible to plan for untoward events that we do know occur in life?  Prenuptials are the only sensible action when there is property owned by either one.  If you have been fortunate to marry someone who has a much larger income, all brides don't have that experience.  If there are children, should there not be legal plans for their care and custody in the unfortunate event both of  you are killed?  Life happens.  It is naive, IMO, to avoid taking precautions such as prenuptial agreements.  In no way does in it imply that one is "planning" for a divorce, but with the prevalence of divorce in our society, it is very unwise not to do so.  If one desires to be legally married, rather than merely cohabiting, what is the difference in having a legally binding prenuptial agreement?  They are both legal documents signifying of a contractual and legal agreement.

Argh. If you feel the need for a prenup, don't get married. In most states, current law provides more than adequate protection for children and for spouses, regardless of income. A prenup is not necessary to arrange for care of minor children in the event of a death or for the distribution of assets or property in the event of a death (a will covers this.) I may be naïve, but the root of naivete is trust. How can one be too trusting of your bride- or groom-to-be? I would never have married my wife if I felt like I could be hurt by "over-trusting" her. I trust her with my inner-most secrets, my heart, my body, and my bank account. If I thought it wouldn't work out, I'd have never gotten married. Perhaps that's the root of the divorce problem here in America. We have too many divorces because there are too many people getting married that shouldn't have gotten married in the first place. We have drive-thru wedding chapels, and shotgun weddings. No surprise, then, that both prenups and pre-wedding STD exams are so popular. Shayna - I'm assuming you've found a person who has earned your trust and your love. Congratulations, and put the prenup to better use - line the bottom of the litterbox with it or put it in a double cross-cut shredder and use it for confetti at the wedding.

Never mind pre-nups, I don't know why anyone bothers to get married anymore. Post-sexual revolution, with no-fault divorce in all 50 states, marriage is a fraud. It doens't exist. Suppose we marry and you have two kids, and later you decide you don't like me anymore and want to leave. I haven't cheated, don't abuse you, provide a home for you. Can I stop you from divorcing me? No. You can divorce me, probably get the kids, child support, and possibly spousal support, as well. There isn't a thing I can do about it. Or suppose we get married, I become extremely successful and in 30 years want to trade you in on a much younger "trophy wife." You haven't been unfaithful or a bad wife of any sort. Can you stop me from divorcing you? No. You can take half of the wealth we accumulated during our marriage, but suppose I had $100 million, I'd be more than happy to take my half and my trophy wife. Does anyone see a problem with this? Seriously, why does anyone bother with this? For the children? White people don't have children anymore. For the sake of appearances? Please. Would you be disfellowshipped? Are you kidding me? In Southern CA conference, we can't get rid of pastor for doctrinal reasons. We probably could not fire a pastor for "moral" reasons unless he molested a child on the platform during the 11:00 a.m. worship hour.

Awwwww. Dave, you never mentioned that you were a romantic!

Elaine Nelson

As I understand, marriage in the Scandanavian countries is rare.  People cohabit, form families, have children, and  it seems to work.  It worked for most of the world's history when there was no formal marriage ceremonies:  men simply chose a mate, bargained with the father for price, and took her, period.

The true cause of divorce is marriage: without the latter, there could not be the former.  However, in the U.S. there is still cohabitation and there are no laws preventing it.  Marriage is often chosen only for the benefit of children.  Studies showing that previous cohabitation results in a higher divorce is skewed:  Breakups of cohabitations are not recorded, so there is not true comparison between successful cohabitations and successful marriages.  Simply living together does not mean happy marriage.  Also, for men, marriage promotes longevity; for women it decreases their lifespans.

If marriage is the cause of divorce, then happiness causes sadness, joy causes pain, and life causes death. Such a cynical approach to the romantic notion of marriage is almost as sad a perspective of a lifetime partnership with the one you love as the idea of me buying my wife from her father. It's also somewhat dismissive of the wonderful (if increasingly rare) marriages of couples that survived a lifetime of challenges and celebrated a lifetime of successes. But some people are innately cynical, and I can understand they find romance inherently incompatible with their emotional makeup. You guys hated "When Harry Met Sally" and "The Notebook" and all those kinds of films. For those people, I hesitantly concur with their need to introduce the toxicity of an attorney into their pre-marital relationship, but strongly suggest they find one with a revolving office door that offers a discount for repeat customers.

Elaine Nelson

Sorry, the TIC wasn't recognized.  I was being facetious.

However, without some sadness in life, joy cannot be appreciated; without the knowledge of death in the future, our lives would have far less importance:  morality helps us to realize that we do not have endless time here, and we should make the most of it.  We must have some evil to appreciate good; if we were only limited to good choices would we truly be free?  Adam and Eve had a choice.

There is a great difference between cynicism and realism.  Which is why we purchase insurance--hoping NOT to need it, but we do prepare for the worst.  We do not plan on a marriage being broken by death or divorce, but we do know that happens, and to assume that legally everything will be cared for is extreme naivete.  Smart people take care of such things beforehand, which relieves the mind for things no one ever hopes will happen, but, as we know, they do.

 Experience has shown that many have been left penniless after a marriage breakup they never dreamed would happen.  And yes, Christians have almost exactly the same divorce rate as non-Christians.

So you're saying that Adam and Eve essentially were forced into eating the apple because the perfection God surrounded them with in the Garden of Eden was a pointless exercise in good in the utter absence of evil?

As you can tell by my moniker, I am a BIG believer in the concept of insurance.  However, I've never tried to sell a product insuring against the end of a voluntary relationship.  The alternative to needing car insurance or life insurance is not driving and not living.  The alternative to needing a prenup is not getting married in the first place. 

In fact, I'd never sell life insurance to a guy who showed up in my office coughing up blood.  Nor would I sell car insurance to a guy who walked into my office behind a seeing-eye dog.  And just as life insurance is inappropriate for the terminally ill, and driving is inappropriate for the blind, marriage is inappropriate for a couple that doesn't trust each other.  All three situations are guaranteed to end badly. 

Every state in America has established both legislation and caselaw that adequately protects both parties to the marriage, as well as any children resulting from that marriage.  Marital assets are typically divided 50-50, including property and real estate holdings, bank accounts, securites, and retirement savings.  While income is not always split, particularly in the cases where both husband and wife are employed or employable, arrangements are typically enforced that allow the lower-earning spouse time to re-establish themselves before they are forced to be independent of the accustomed household earnings.  Child support is calculated according to formula, and enforced by the state. 

There are only two situations where prenups are necessary:  if one party wishes to pay less after a divorce than what the established law provides, or if one party wishes to gain a windfall in excess of what the established law provides.  In other words, one must not only expect the demise of the marriage, but they also, with certainty, want to circumvent the established legal protections, either to shortchange their partner or be awarded a windfall - outside of what the law provides.  So if your partner approaches you with a pen and piece of paper after they give or accept an engagement ring, you should run the other way, because they are looking to give you the short end of the stick.  So run.  Quickly.  And don't look back. 

Elaine Nelson

Funny, I would never have guessed you sold insurance :-) 

I also did not say that Adam and Eve were forced to do anything; only that there had to be a choice for them to make, which had been set before them.

Why do you sell insurance?  Isn't it to cover for what could be catastrophic for someone?  Have you known no one who has been terribly financially hit when a marriage breaks up?  Well, I have, and I can assure you that things don't automatically separate 50-50.  What about the future spouse (as in the story) who made more than 10X the income of the bride?  And, what if said superior financial partner had made all that prior to the marriage?  It does not follow that everything prior to the marriage then becomes a 50-50 proposition.  It could be reasonable to only divide assets accumulated AFTER the marriage, not before.  Have  you seen any prenups?  I've seen the sudden death of one spouse and the step children swooped in an took every non-monetary asset (furniture, cars, etc.) and left nothing for the biological adult children, even though the step parent had only been married less than a year.  No law did, or could prevent that.  All assets are not cash, and then there is child custody arrangements.  Only a divorce judge could tell of sad stories when there was either no prenup or no will.

Why does one make out a will?  Shouldn't we trust that our heirs will act honorably and divide everything evenly?  Dream on.  Prenups or nothing but a will that sets forth the wishes of both parties who are no longer married.  What about the spouse who cheats and commits infidelity?  With no-fault divorce, equal division of all assets would give the cheating, unfaithful spouse and equal portion of the assets.  That's fair?  To be rewarded equally as the faithful spouse?

Typically, divorce impacts both parties significantly. The Donald Trump - Ivanka/Marla Maples-type saga is the exception.  You are 100 percent correct that the penniless girl who marries the millionaire is only entitled to split the increase in household assets AFTER the marriage, during which time, as half of duo, she theoretically did her share to earn the household living (which seems reasonable...)   However, certain household properties, such as the marital home, are also split 50/50, even if the home was purchased prior to the marriage. 

A will is an entirely different topic and proposition.  My will is set up to distribute assets or arrange care for my minor children as I see fit, not as I see "fair". A prenup plans for the "just in case" while a will plans for the inevitable - a massive difference between the two legal instruments.  

But back to divorce and prenups...  No-fault divorce exists based on the premise that the legal system is not equipped to assign a dollar value penalty to infidelity, or lack of consortium, or emotional or physical abuse. The idea that a man or woman who is unfaithful should pay a financial price is antiquated for a reason - it's silly to assign a cash value to fidelity or to punitive damages because a person failed in their marital duties in any way.  Should there be a one time charge for unlimited affairs?  Or should there be a per-mistress charge?  Perhaps a system based on the elementary school system of 1st, 2nd, or 3rd base or home run of sexual misconduct... 

Elaine Nelson

"However, certain household properties, such as the marital home, are also split 50/50, even if the home was purchased prior to the marriage."

Which is why prenups are so very important.  I know a woman who married someone who moved into the home she had paid for more than 20 years.  It was in her name, she paid the mortgage while he never contributed to it.  Only because there was a prenup was she able to keep possession of the home, otherwise, he would have had 50% of the home's value while never contributing toward it.  

Please explain why a prenup in such a case was not a good idea. 

A better idea would have been not marrying him, but I will concede that when marrying a homeless man, one should get a prenup.

I smiled at reading the comments on this thread. First time marriages are a 50/50 risk and statistics worsen for 2nd and 3rd marriages. Pre-nuptial contracts to me, interject some sanity into the process of rolling the dice when entering into marriage. It can protect both parties.

Elaine Nelson The man in question sold his former home, so was not exactly "homeless." Doctorof is more sensible: because stats are almost identical for Christians and non-Christians, perhaps those who are not "believers" demonstrate more common sense and less "faith" in the future marriage.  If you truly truly someone, why should there be a problem in any situation, not to sign such a statement.

You trust your banker, your contractor, etc., but demand written contracts, not mere "word-of-mouth."

Elaine Nelson The man in question sold his former home, so was not exactly "homeless." Doctorof is more sensible: because stats are almost identical for Christians and non-Christians, perhaps those who are not "believers" demonstrate more common sense and less "faith" in the future marriage.  If you truly truly trust someone, why should there be a problem in any situation, not to sign such a statement.

You trust your banker, your contractor, etc., but demand written contracts, not mere "word-of-mouth."

DoctorF! 

Elaine - DoctorF's view of prenups is colored not by his "Doctor" degree (he's really the SoCal celebrity cosmetic dentist who did Jon and Kate plus 8's teeth whitening, not a real doctor...) but by the fact that he recently divorced my second cousin.  He tried to have her deported back to the Philippines,  but instead she hired Britney Spear's divorce lawyer, and DocF now lives in the pool house out back while my cousin and her parents and grandparents live in the big house.  Sorry for "OUTING" you here on AToday, DocF, but you deserve it for trying to send Gigi Butaganaganaga back to Manila, penniless and pregnant with your 6th child.  And that crown you did for me last year fell out - I don't care if it was free, you could have done a better job. 

Marriage is the most sacred of coin-flips, and I won't have it's sanctity defiled by a prenup.  Next thing you know, non-traditional people like homosexuals will try to enter into holy matrimony - that would really mark the beginning of the downhill slide for the institution of marriage in America.

Elaine Nelson

The name of poster means nothing; only what they say. 

Marriage is only a sacred insitution for those who wish it blessed in a religious ceremony; it is a STATE institution, licensed by the state and no one is required to have a religious ceremony, but must have a state license.

As to homosexuals marrying--it's already happening.  And who cares--it doesn't affect anyone but the two parties involved.  We should mind our own business and let others make such personal decisions without our aid.

I'm a little hazy on my history, but I think people were getting married long before the existence of the States, much less the 13 original colonies.  And I won't have my own marriage watered down and defiled by 2 homosexuals claiming to share the same sacred bond as my wife and I. 

Elaine Nelson

How does homosexuals marrying "water down" your marriage--isn't the 24-hour marriages of two drunks in Las Vegas doing more to harm the state of matrimony than uniting two same sex individuals who wish to have the same insurance and other benefits as you do.  That's outright discrimination and not equality at all.

Elaine Nelson

No one is forcing marriage, no one is forcing prenups.  It's all voluntary folks.  And for those who don't wish them, simply refuse.  Why should it matter to us how other people structure their marriages! 

Ahhh, Elaine, I'm just yanking your chain.  DocF is neither a cosmetic dentist to the stars nor my former cousin-in-law.  I'm not a bigoted anti-gay crusader, either.  I'm just messing around. 

To me, a prenup is a tool to be used if you are worried about your financial well being after the possible demise of your marriage.  If you have a financial interest to protect (either to get extra money than the law allows from your mate, or to give them less money) and they are crazy enough in love with you to sign it, more power to you.

Elaine Nelson

Sorry, I'm totally unimpressed by anyone's title or reputation.  And yes, for many today who marry later and have already established themselves, it is simply smart and prudent to plan ahead for whatever happens.  That is why you sell insurance, I believe.