Good News on the Law: Before You Say “I Do” to a Pre-Nup…

Good News Daily ^ | May 7, 2008 | Stephen Bloom

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

But in practice prenuptials may run afoul of Church law in a number of ways. For example, they cannot subject a marriage to a condition concerning the future (e.g., an agreement about the dividing of assets in case of divorce). The Code of Canon Law provides: "A marriage subject to a condition about the future cannot be contracted validly" (CIC 1102).

A pre-nup does not subject the marriage per se to conditions. Only the money.

Render unto Caesar, I say.

[SuziQ]

Congratulations on your upcoming anniversary, and may the next 33 be just as happy!

Thanks! We're looking forward to them!

We were married the same day, same year, as x42 and Her Heinous. I always tell folks that I can guaran-damn-tee that we've been MUCH happier than they ever have!

[snowrip]

Anything that makes divorce easier has a tendency to undermine marriages.

A prenup doesn't make a divorce "easier" at all. What it DOES do is protect assets from either side against being destroyed as a result of a divorce.

Saying that prenups weaken marriage is like saying trip insurance results in fewer successful vacations. C'mon.

[SuziQ]

All I know is that it's working fine for us. I opened the checking account originally as an account for use with PayPal, so that in the event of someone hacking it, there wouldn't be a danger to our joint account. When I got the money from Mama, hubby told me to go ahead and put it there, and I also opened up a Money Market account, so that it would be interest bearing. Since I'm not using it to hide money from him, I don't see a problem with having a separate account.

We'd already opened some Spousal IRAs for me, and he would add to those each year, since I wasn't working. Of course, until just a few years ago, he couldn't put much in them, but fortunately, that changed.

Unless I go back to a job of some sort, I won't get anything from Social Security in my name, because I didn't work long enough before the kids came along. So having the IRAs will provide a little bit more income for me down the line. But hubby has worked the finances with the goal that I won't have to rely on the kids much for my needs, even if I outlive him by many years.

[SuziQ]

Worse thing is that when you ‘buy the cow’, there is no longer any milk.

Only if you buy the wrong one. ;o)

[LikeLight]

Saying that prenups weaken marriage is like saying trip insurance results in fewer successful vacations.

Most vacations aren't considered to be a holy sacrament of the church of Jesus Christ. To me, there would be something presumptuous and unseemly about buying trip insurance if I was embarking on a missionary pilgrimage, as compared to, say, a visit to Disneyland. In my humble opinion, contracts and insurance are fine for for some things, but some holy things are better entrusted to God's care.

[LikeLight]

Henry Beecher

Revealing my ignorance here...

Who is Henry Beecher?

[Titan Magroyne]

Was it the money that caused her change in behavior? Or would it have happened naturally over time.

Money was an issue. Not lack thereof, but that she'd demonstrated a blind spot when it came to money, not shifting between accts in time to stave off $400 in NSF fees. D'ya know how many checks you have to bounce to be assessed that much? That happened several years ago, more than once, and evidently she nursed a resentment. Now it's payback time. He's sure she's not having an affair or using drugs, but nobody knows what she's blowing the money on. He had responsibility for the bills plus her grocery-and-gas money was what *I* bring home every month - and I pay all my bills (incl mortgage). Though he encouraged her to finish her doctorate & go back to work, I suppose she felt like a bird in a gilded cage. Would he want to live with a woman like this whose behavior was just “suppressed” by a pre-nup?

Nope. The passive-aggressive act is not charming. The money is merely a tool. Or a weapon. I'm worried about what else she could do to the kids. You know what the weird and scary thing is? Some guy will fall for her even after hearing this story and meeting her ex-husband!

LOL! Hubby would prolly be grateful to the guy for providing her a distraction!

Goodness, I didn't even think about that. I have so little faith in her mothering ability right now, I'd be very concerned what sort of persons she might allow around the children. I keep apologising to him on behalf of All Womanhood. Then I have to tell him, sorry, I DON'T know what the heck is going through her mind. I simply can't comprehend it.

[Titan Magroyne]

“By God, you’ve got that right. Living alone is doable and surviveable. Some of the alternatives aren’t.”

Ayup!

[rom]

Wow, what a story. I feel for everyone involved.

I hope all goes well for your friend and his children. As adults what we do to each other is one thing, but children should be innocents.

Sadly, too many use them as pawns.

[familyop]

"Who is Henry Beecher?"

Henry Beecher was one of Susan B. Anthony's friends. Being an early male feminist, he preached much romanticism (see "romanticism," "Age of Romanticism," Nathaniel Hawthorne,...) and specifically in favor of adultery. A scandal eventually arose, after one of his exploits with the wife of a friend was discovered.

I did some research on Anthony and her associates a few years ago for a cited series. An academic member of Concerned Women for America sent a letter of argument containing positives about Beecher, but the letter did not rebut any of the cited points in the series.

Not many people would agree with a rejection of romanticism, as my point of view is rather more socially conservative and old-fashioned than most. I understand some romantic feelings as being related to lust and others being lust itself. The long study of historical social trends and religions took me beyond Puritanism, the Medieval and even ancient Rome, by the way, and to a great change in beliefs.

Thus...a tendency toward advising young people (even those of lesser means) to be very analytical about courting for marriage and to avoid sanguineous metaphorical arguments against doing so.

The insightful articles behind the following links should be enlightening for any young men who are considering marriage. I'm very much in favor of marriage in general, but quite a few US laws need to be repealed (and romantic practices ceased). Our Nation and its new religion (see Ted Haggard's followers, and all) stands against marriage.

The Presumption Against Marriage
by Bernard Chapin

The Presumption Against Marriage, Part II
by Bernard Chapin

[familyop]

BTW, I was only referring to your article with regard to Beecher’s (and others’) beliefs from romanticism and nothing more specific or derogatory.

[familyop]

...general beliefs from romanticism, that is.

[Titan Magroyne]

As do I. On behalf of my friend’s family, thank you for your well wishes. :o)

[LikeLight]

I did some research on Anthony and her associates a few years ago for a cited series.

The depth and breadth of knowledge on FR never ceases to amaze me, even after all these years. Thanks for the background info.

[fr_freak]

You might find it interesting that it was the early Protestant Reformers like Martin Luther that made marriage a civil institution.

Whether that is correct or not, I have no idea, but I am primarily concerned with the American tradition. Back when 99% of government was local, and your Justice of the Peace or local magistrate sat next to you in the pew on Sunday, having the wedding performed by such an official was not a problem, and did not detract from its spiritual nature. However, we have reached a point where the federal government is a monster, and even the state governments have become unwieldly, impersonal bureaucracies. County governments are often not much better. And all levels of government have been infiltrated by anti-religious socialist zealots. In such a circumstance, it is unwise to have the government involved in your marriage.