Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: WildTurkey

Some people in this thread seem to say that men don't have the right to change their mind if the future Mrs refuses to sign a prenup. They call it duress. I say it is their right to do so, especially in light of the current laws of the US; these laws are unreasonable to the extreme as they don't take into account the hardships the man would be under, the fairness of the sums of money involved if she didn't bring much monetarily into the marriage and he was loaded. The prenup is one of the few mechanisms that decrease the risks of deciding to marry.

CAN WE PLEASE STOP INCREASING THE RISKS OF MARRYING AND INCREASING THE INCENTIVES TO DIVORCE?


44 posted on 12/30/2004 9:12:57 AM PST by winner3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]


To: winner3000

You're acting like they invalidated the whole pre-nup. They didn't. Just one aspect of it. He still has all the assets he brought to the marriage...

Let's face it - to expect a woman, who stayed home and raised your children and made a home for you, to just "move on" and be able to support herself after you tire of her is just wrong. Period. Anyone who says otherwise isn't much of a man.


59 posted on 12/30/2004 9:17:38 AM PST by Chad Fairbanks (I'd like to find your inner child and kick its little ass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

To: winner3000

With some of the judges and the decisions they are forcing upon the public, don't be suprised to one day have a judge say something like the following:

This man required his fiancee to be to sign a prenuptial agreement before he would marry her. She refused. Because she refused, the man refused to go through with the marriage ceremony. The court finds this act reprehensible. Since the court cannot force the man to marry the woman without the prenuptial agreement, the woman must be compensated for the loss of "benefits" she might have acquired as this man's wife. Therefore the court awards this woman 1/2 of all assets this man may acquire over the next 50 years, including the current home inwhich he currently resides.


83 posted on 12/30/2004 9:39:29 AM PST by LoneSome Journey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

To: winner3000
CAN WE PLEASE STOP INCREASING THE RISKS OF MARRYING AND INCREASING THE INCENTIVES TO DIVORCE?

Agree 100%. I had a pre-nup for my 2nd marriage that saved my @ss when my much younger wife decided I was boring and got a boyfriend during my 2nd semester in electrical engineering(back to school at 30 thanks to my Grandfather). I kept my home, my car, my bills, AND we split the joint bills. Louisiana, 1985.

On alimony, I have mixed feelings. Over a LONG(decades) marriage...I can understand it. When awarded after a "brief" marriage to "maintain the standard of living" for the EX....I view it as legal prostitution payments/extortion/theft-by-fraud AND way out of line.

98 posted on 12/30/2004 9:53:06 AM PST by Johnny Crab (Always thankful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

To: winner3000
The prenup is one of the few mechanisms that decrease the risks of deciding to marry.

You don't spring a prenup on your lady two days before the wedding.

210 posted on 12/30/2004 11:38:14 AM PST by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson