Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In this day and age, pre-nups protect both men and women. If you're not willing to sign, that's a huge red flag and for me, one that I absolutely will not overlook under any circumstances.
No I don't realize that. It's either all in or nothing. you have your opinion, I have mine.
Hi round,
Of course, opinions are what we're here for.
Regardless, you're in favor of walking from a prenup contract AND walking if they don't sign your marriage license contract. Seems like a "cake and eat it too" situation.
At the end of the day, either side requiring a contract doesn't have "trust".
At the end of the day, either side requiring a contract doesn't have "trust".
Usually, I think it has less to do with issues of trust, and more to do with having clarity. If you are happy with the default marriage contract imposed by the state, then great, no prenup is needed. However, if you wish to improve upon the default contract, you need a prenup. A good prenup and actually improve a marriage. It can be a tool for communication and disclosure, which builds trust.
What would you say to a guy who wanted to marry you with a wedding ceremony but not sign a marriage license? Basically, it creates a uniform state marriage contract.
Being legally married confers many rights, not just about divorce. If my husband and I were not married and one of us were killed in an accident, the other would not be the automatic beneficiary of life insurance and other assets. I'm his wife, his legal next of kin. After me, I think it's his mother. I am NOT fighting with his mother over our money.
.... At the end of the day, either side requiring a contract doesn't have "trust".
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaoistDude
Usually, I think it has less to do with issues of trust, and more to do with having clarity. If you are happy with the default marriage contract imposed by the state, then great, no prenup is needed. However, if you wish to improve upon the default contract, you need a prenup. A good prenup and actually improve a marriage. It can be a tool for communication and disclosure, which builds trust.
This is what I said a few posts earlier. A business contract should not be used to leverage your interests when dealing with someone you don't trust. You should not be doing business with them in the first place if you don't trust them. A contract should be a clarification of the details of a detail between parties who wish to each fulfill their end.
Same with marriage. A pre-nup should not have the flavor of "I don't trust you to do something, so I'm going to force the issue above your signature". It should be: "There can not be disagreements on what was decided upon pre-marriage, because it was discussed, compromises reached, agreements made, and the final terms clarified in a pre-nup."
I guess one common misunderstanding from all this is when a pre-nup is perceived as an instrument that is used to force an issue the other party doesn't wish to agree to. I don't agree to that concept because I don't agree that you can be forced into agreeing to marriage. The Pre-nup is just another clause that is added to the marriage contract, to which (presumably) both parties have discussed and agreed to.
Example: Man has a daughter from his prior marriage that the new fiance dislikes and doesn't think the daughter should get any of her father's estate. Man makes a pre-nup saying that no matter what, the daughter get 10%.
This example should show that the new wife (maybe begrudgingly, but openly) acknowledges that if her soon-to-be new husband passes, the daughter will still get that bequeath. She is signing a statement that says she agrees to this as a part of the contract of her joining with the man in marriage.
Being legally married confers many rights, not just about divorce. If my husband and I were not married and one of us were killed in an accident, the other would not be the automatic beneficiary of life insurance and other assets. I'm his wife, his legal next of kin. After me, I think it's his mother. I am NOT fighting with his mother over our money.
Hi Julia,
I certainly understand this and think that's fine for whoever chooses it. Personally, I'd create my own civil contracts and POAs for medical, asset and insurance purposes. I'm not trying to impose my own choice on others.
My main point was in regards to hypocrisy of those who will not sign their spouse's pre-nup but would be upset if their spouse would not sign a marriage license. They're both contracts.
Usually, I think it has less to do with issues of trust, and more to do with having clarity. If you are happy with the default marriage contract imposed by the state, then great, no prenup is needed. However, if you wish to improve upon the default contract, you need a prenup. A good prenup and actually improve a marriage. It can be a tool for communication and disclosure, which builds trust.
I agree with everything you said. Notice the after my post, I was playfully making my point about hypocrisy by bringing others "trust" argument into it.
This is what I said a few posts earlier. A business contract should not be used to leverage your interests when dealing with someone you don't trust. You should not be doing business with them in the first place if you don't trust them. A contract should be a clarification of the details of a detail between parties who wish to each fulfill their end.
Same with marriage. A pre-nup should not have the flavor of "I don't trust you to do something, so I'm going to force the issue above your signature". It should be: "There can not be disagreements on what was decided upon pre-marriage, because it was discussed, compromises reached, agreements made, and the final terms clarified in a pre-nup."
I guess one common misunderstanding from all this is when a pre-nup is perceived as an instrument that is used to force an issue the other party doesn't wish to agree to. I don't agree to that concept because I don't agree that you can be forced into agreeing to marriage. The Pre-nup is just another clause that is added to the marriage contract, to which (presumably) both parties have discussed and agreed to.
Example: Man has a daughter from his prior marriage that the new fiance dislikes and doesn't think the daughter should get any of her father's estate. Man makes a pre-nup saying that no matter what, the daughter get 10%.
This example should show that the new wife (maybe begrudgingly, but openly) acknowledges that if her soon-to-be new husband passes, the daughter will still get that bequeath. She is signing a statement that says she agrees to this as a part of the contract of her joining with the man in marriage.
I could agree to that. I do think that pre-nups can help in that kind of scenario. However, just like a will, any pre-nup can be contested. If we agree now, that doesn't mean we will agree later, especially if tempers are running hot.
Most of the time that pre-nups are brought up here (much more than half the time, I'd wager), it's to indicate that if a divorce ever occurs (or when the divorce occurs, coming from some of the posters), the wife will just have to leave with nothing because it's all his stuff that he worked for. Such statements are often accompanied by objections to child support, giving the impression that the ***** and the children he fathered can just GTFO. It's distasteful to say the least.
I think most reasonable people would be willing to consider a reasonably worded pre-nup, particularly when there are existing assets to be protected. If both are starting from scratch, maybe not so much.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
