[LikeLight]

Excerpt from my latest Christian legal column (by FReeper LikeLight).

I'm sure this one will raise some passions... Let's keep it clean and civil...

[CDHart]

He's right, IMO - unless it's a second marriage and children's inheritance is involved.

Carolyn

[nina0113]

Did you know Catholic marriages are not valid (in the Chruch’s eyes)if there is a pre-nup?

[Fido969]

Not a probelm for me. I got married once, divorced once, and I would never put myself through that again.

Happily single now.

[JamesP81]

I have an even simpler solution for surviving this era of frequent marital break up. Don’t do it. Don’t get married. It is nearly impossible to tell the good ones from the bad ones anymore.

[FoxInSocks]

Before the wedding day, we are warned, wise couples should agree in writing what will happen if and when the marriage dissolves. But is there something wrong with this pessimistic advice?

No, there's nothing wrong with it at all. At work I see couples slogging through different stages of divorce proceedings almost every day. Now, I haven't actually asked anyone, but I'm sure none of them got married with the idea that they would be spending thousands and thousands of dollars a few years later to divide their assets and get a divorce.

[ElkGroveDan]

The need for discussing the breakup of a marriage prior to the wedding means it is doomed from the start.

Long ago while she was still single Elizabeth Taylor said, “I hope my first marriage will be a happy one.”

[steve-b]

I believe pre-nuptial agreements tend to undermine the marriage relationship, putting the sacred covenant on shaky ground from the beginning.

Nonsense. Such inane argument is on a par with the belief that going to the doctor reflects a lack of faith in God's providence.

[Mr. Jeeves]

Should Christians begin their sacred marriage relationship as if it were just another business deal? Is it healthy for a husband and wife to be forced into negotiating against one another as legal adversaries, each with their own attorneys, in the days or weeks before they are joined as “one flesh” in the eyes of God?

That's a moot point, since the government has already taken over marriage as an instrument to implement various social policies and distribute benefits. Better to go all the way and make the pre-nup a legal requirement - taking the "You don't trust me!" emotions back out of the equation.

[goodnesswins]

Seems to me it would be more important for a FIRST (and hopefully last) marriage to have a COVENENTAL Agreement....no divorce just because “I don’t love him/her anymore”.....

[OpusatFR]

“Should Christians begin their sacred marriage relationship as if it were just another business deal? Is it healthy for a husband and wife to be forced into negotiating against one another as legal adversaries, each with their own attorneys, in the days or weeks before they are joined as “one flesh” in the eyes of God?”

How is this different from dowry negotiations?

The dowry was returned if the marriage failed safeguarding the wife. I realize it is an anachronism, but a pre-nuptual agreement, done correctly, safeguards both parties.

Unfortunately, I think in a first marriage, especially in a Christian marriage, it might give more power to the wealthier spouse and create something decidedly unChristian.

In a subsequent marriage, especially if children are involved, definitely.

Christians are subject to the same worldly, ungodly nastiness like everyone else, especially if greed enters the picture.

[Between the Lines]

Our "prenup":

Our Marriage Covenant

"Believing that marriage is a covenant,
intended by God to be a lifelong relationship
between a man and a woman,
we vow to God, each other, our families and
our communities to remain steadfast in
unconditional love, reconciliation
and sexual purity
while purposefully growing in our
covenant marriage relationship."

[kbennkc]

Back before I repented and was in the legal racket , we called them antenuptial contracts . They were to hard to sell with that name because it sounded like anti-nuptial and it was giving folks a second thought and providing one last split second chance for a clean getaway .

[Hop A Long Cassidy]

Interesting post.

Why not let the market decide? Church goers are thinking humans too.

Interesting statistics on odds of divorce found here:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=363986

Clearly if there are great disparities in wealth between the wife and the husband, a pre-nup is PRUDENT (not skeptical) given the probabilities of divorce. Skeptical would be a pre-nup in the 1950s between two people with equal wealth.

[jalisco555]

A pre-nuptial agreement (informally called a “pre-nup”) is a legal contract between a husband and a wife.

So is marriage. Marriages are legal contracts between individuals, are performed in accordance with secular law by agents licensed by the state. I understand the religious overlay but that doesn't change the fact that marriages occur, and are dissolved, under rules set out by the state. At the risk of sounding rather cold-blooded it seems to me that a pre-nup would be a reasonable extension of this.

[jalisco555]

BTW, my wife and I don’t have a pre-nup since we were essentially penniless when we got married 25 years ago. But I would advise our children to get one, particularly if there is a significant age difference or economic difference between them and their prospective spouses.

[Hildy]

I don’t know why ANY person, many or woman, with money and/or assets would get married without one. Sorry.

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

My mother got a pre-nup for her first marriage because her parents asked her to do it. She was set to inherit their money and they wanted assurance that it would be hers alone.
Then after her first husband died, and she had inherited a lot of money, she got a pre-nup for her second marriage because she wanted to be sure I would inherit.
If I ever get married, I will have a pre-nup for the same reasons. Far as I’m concerned, the people who produced the inheritance in the first place, still have some say in it, though they’re long gone.

[rom]

My wife is a good person. I’d like to think I know her pretty well.

I’ve been with her through ups and downs. Two children, maybe more to come. Hopefully grandchildren. Then I look forward to retiring with her, spending time traveling, touring our great country and the world. Maybe go back to England where I was born and show her Europe. I have no real love of Europe, but she’s never been and wants to go someday. Those are the thoughts I had when I got married to her. And they’ve only gotten stronger as the years have rolled on.

Marriage isn’t always happy, nor pretty. There will be rough times, but if both people are decent folks and committed to the relationship and the *children* then I find no reason for divorce. Both people have to know that stuff will happen in life.

I think a lot of people who get divorced multiple times are the types who always think that the grass is greener on the other side. Not that I think divorce is necessarily wrong. Ronaldus Magnus got divorced once, and then found the love of his life. We are human, mistakes do happen ;-).

The way I look at the rough times is this: Let’s look forward to when they are over, and get over them constructively.

BTW, as to marriage statistics: claiming you are Christian doesn’t make you so! I’m not technically a Christian, but I would be willing to bet that the way we live our lives is more aligned with traditional Christianity than most of the people on the street who claim they are. Just as saying that you are a Republican doesn’t make you a conservative.

But maybe I am a naive fool. I say this much, if I am — my wife can have everything if we split. She is the mother of my children, and if I made such a grand mistake in the woman I chose to marry then that’s my punishment :) And if the fault is entirely mine and she divorces me, then I deserve it as well! It will also be a good disincentive to getting married again, as several posters have alluded to!

[LiberConservative]

After enduring a bad marriage and an even worse divorce to a "Christian" woman who was "100% committed" to God and me and married me "for life" I am convinced of one thing: Getting a pre-nup is a GREAT IDEA and being a "good steward" with what God gives you. Not having one is just plain STUPID. God doesn't change - including His intent for marriage. But people do. A pre-nup can only help if/when a divorce starts getting ugly. It may even keep divorce proceedings civil enough to make a reconciliation more possible.

[fr_freak]

I think that the institution of marriage has been hijacked by the government. Once upon a time, the government merely recorded the marriage, but the actual marriage was conducted in a church. Nowadays, people look to the government to bless their marriages with a marriage license. Well, when an amoral, innately corrupt organization like the government is the institution which blesses your marriage, it only stands to reason that marriage will be cheapened and, of course, what the government blesses, it can also unbless (divorce).

For those who are inclined to follow the Bible, I think the operative words are "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and "Render unto God what is God's". Does marriage belong to Caesar or to God? My understanding is that marriage is a sacred covenant with God, and therefore nobody should let the government get its grubby little fingers into their marriage. If a man and woman view marriage as the providence of God, and accept the blessing of their marriage only from God, then certainly the marriage cannot be dissolved simply because some government bureaucrat says it has been. That is one reason government should be kept out of it, in my opinion. The government will try to insert itself, anyway, with common law marriage principles, but as long as the married couple does not see the government as a member of their marriage, that won't matter.