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

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...

1 posted on 05/07/2008 8:37:28 AM PDT by LikeLight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last
To: LikeLight
He's right, IMO - unless it's a second marriage and children's inheritance is involved.

Carolyn

2 posted on 05/07/2008 8:41:18 AM PDT by CDHart ("It's too late to work within the system and too early to shoot the b@#$%^&s."--Claire Wolfe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: LikeLight

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


3 posted on 05/07/2008 8:41:51 AM PDT by nina0113 (If fences don't work, why does the White House have one?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: LikeLight

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

Happily single now.


4 posted on 05/07/2008 8:43:23 AM PDT by Fido969 ("The hardest thing in the world to understand is income tax." - Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: LikeLight; Froufrou

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.


5 posted on 05/07/2008 8:44:21 AM PDT by JamesP81 ("I am against "zero tolerance" policies. It is a crutch for idiots." --FReeper Tenacious 1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: LikeLight
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.

6 posted on 05/07/2008 8:44:27 AM PDT by FoxInSocks (B. Hussein Obama: The Paucity of Hope)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: LikeLight

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.”


10 posted on 05/07/2008 8:46:25 AM PDT by ElkGroveDan (The road to hell is paved with the stones of pragmatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: LikeLight
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.

11 posted on 05/07/2008 8:47:38 AM PDT by steve-b (The "intelligent design" hoax is not merely anti-science; it is anti-civilization. --John Derbyshire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: LikeLight
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.

12 posted on 05/07/2008 8:47:49 AM PDT by Mr. Jeeves ("One man's 'magic' is another man's engineering. 'Supernatural' is a null word." -- Robert Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: LikeLight

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”.....


14 posted on 05/07/2008 8:48:33 AM PDT by goodnesswins (20 is the new 10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: LikeLight

“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.


15 posted on 05/07/2008 8:49:35 AM PDT by OpusatFR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: LikeLight
Our "prenup":
16 posted on 05/07/2008 8:49:46 AM PDT by Between the Lines (I am very cognizant of my fallibility, sinfulness, and other limitations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: LikeLight
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 .
17 posted on 05/07/2008 8:50:00 AM PDT by kbennkc (For those who have fought for it , freedom has a flavor the protected will never know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: LikeLight

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.


19 posted on 05/07/2008 8:50:15 AM PDT by Hop A Long Cassidy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: LikeLight
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.

28 posted on 05/07/2008 9:13:32 AM PDT by jalisco555 ("My 80% friend is not my 20% enemy" - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: LikeLight

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.


29 posted on 05/07/2008 9:15:38 AM PDT by jalisco555 ("My 80% friend is not my 20% enemy" - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: LikeLight

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


32 posted on 05/07/2008 9:17:45 AM PDT by Hildy (It is our choices, far more than our abilities, that determine who we truly are. - J.K. Rowling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: LikeLight

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.


35 posted on 05/07/2008 9:20:23 AM PDT by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: LikeLight

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!


36 posted on 05/07/2008 9:21:53 AM PDT by rom (Real Conservatives don't vote for Socialists with an (R) next to their name.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: LikeLight
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.
42 posted on 05/07/2008 9:32:39 AM PDT by LiberConservative ("Typical" White Guy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: LikeLight
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.
48 posted on 05/07/2008 9:43:45 AM PDT by fr_freak (So foul a sky clears not without a storm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

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