Yes I did, and it didn’t work out. My only defense is that first husband and I married when I was 17, and somebody (hello, Mom and Dad?) should have stopped me or not signed the parental consent until all all those teen-aged ideals had been washed from my head. However we managed to end it amicably, and I still think he is a great guy (and amazing father). Our divorce was fair, reasonable and without rancor.
Going into my long-term relationship between marriages I had no reason to believe that IF (and it was a HUGE “if” to my mind) it did not lead to an actual marriage (which was my intention at the time) and if we did not die in each others arms like star-crossed lovers of yore, we wouldn’t be able to remain civil, fair and reasonable about a split. And we had the domestic-partnership equivalent of a pre-nup which defined to the last stick of furniture and the last teaspoon in the drawer of who would get what if the unthinkable happened. Guess what though? It didn’t work like that. At all. Before that I was all for pre-nups in theory, but now I know that they can be used as an excuse to drag things out, argue some more and try to get a better deal later, “yeah the document I agreed to said that I would not stay on her car insurance, but that was YEARS ago and now I can’t get my own insurance as cheaply so she should carry me for two more years” that was an actual argument made (and laughed at) in court!
I came into this marriage knowing that it s forever. Yes, I know I thought it was forever twice before and was proven wrong, but I still have faith in marriage and I still want that same kind of faith, devotion, and knowing that it is forever in a husband. If some unthinkable thing happens and it turn out that that we don’t make it forever, then there are laws that will protect me as much as I need protection, and there are laws protecting him. Pre-nups, IMO do nothing but create more drama, more confusion and more litigation in most cases.
As I said upthread, there are a few exceptions where I can see the necessity (large inheritances, etc. to protect) but I would never marry someone in such a situation. I want total devotion “what’s yours is mine, what’s mine is yours” and total joining of our lives. I want to know that it is the right thing to do and that divorce will never cross my mind, and I want my husband to feel the same way. That’s not to say it is a guarantee that divorce will never cross our minds, but it is still (after more than 10 years together) a preposterous idea. If he had thought even for one second pre-wedding that there was the remotest chance he would want to divorce me for any reason in the future, then I would not have agreed to marry him. And if I thought, even for one second that there was anything that could happen that would make me want to divorce him, then I would not have wanted him to marry me. If he had asked me to marry him “with the following conditions” no matter what they were, then I would know he wasn’t really planning and thinking along the same lines as I and that we would never be compatible.
You could also, I suppose have an ongoing relationship with your respective attorneys to amend the pre-nup post nup for any major life changes. For instance, “I’ll give up my career and stay home and raise kids, but before I do so, I want an amendment to our pre-nup.”
As someone who did give up a career (and a pretty good one at that!) to stay at home and raise kids and is still at home even though the kids really don’t need me to be (the youngest is 13) I would have to say that if a pre-nup had been involved at all, then amending it prior to the lifestyle change would be a must. Isn’t that called a post-nup?
But again, if my husband had said anything along the lines of, “I want you stay at home, but first sign this so that I won’t have to pay you extra if I divorce you after you give up your income.” that would have been one of the last things he ever said to me. I can only imagine what his reaction would have been if I had been the one to say “Okay, I’ll become a housewife but only if you promise me I will get XX when we divorce.” but I imagine it would be similar.
Yup. Every few years and at every major change in life, review finances, insurance, domestic contracts (e.g. pre-nups etc.), powers of attorney, and wills. Just like a medical checkup, only for financial and legal matters.
That’s not what I see. When unreasonable folks fight, it isn’t because of any particular document or agreement, but rather is because they are inherently unreasonable and want to fight out of bitterness, hatred, hurt, or any number of emotional reasons. For the ones who fight unreasonably, they tend to fight until they either calm down, or emotionally break down, or run out of money to fund their fight. As long as they are up for a fight, there is never any shortage of fuel, be it a pre-nup, or the body of family law, or disagreement on any number of facts, or production and procedural issues. A pre-nup will neither prevent such a person from fighting, nor encourage such a person to fight, for such a person will inevitably find something over which to fight.
To be quite honest, if the wife has spent a fair number of years caring for the kids and not working, she is almost impossible to re-employ at anything other than a basic beginning position like call center … unless she has been maintaining professional standards and training and certifications while she was caring for the kids … My mom’s last job other than as an unpaid member of the school board was in the engineering department of an aircraft factory in WW2 … if she wasnt 86 and alzheimer’d, what the heck engineering department would hire her for anything other than secretary? Even if she had divorced say back in 1955, before any of us kids came along, that is 10 years out of date, with a full load of men needing jobs… she could fall back on waiting tables or being a secretary both excessively low paying jobs.
Likewise, when people are reasonable and willing to compromise, then it never gets as far as arguing over the minutiae of ‘who gets the snowshoes according to the pre-nup.’
The whole point of prenup is that you don’t trust the marriage to last. Those of you who are saying “No, it’s just-in-case”–there’s no “just in case” if you are absolutely sure. The question is whether being absolutely sure is rational, or otherwise better than the results of a prenup.
elbows’s position is quite clear. A marriage is about absolute trust, and, if there’s a need for a prenup, then that trust is not absolute, and you aren’t qualified to marry him/her.
People seem to forget that this forum is about opinions, and not all opinions are backed by rational arguments.
And now I’ll add the obvious: INSULTING SOMEONE IS NOT THE WAY TO GET THEM TO OFFER A RATIONAL ARGUMENT AND SHOWS YOU DIDN’T REALLY WANT ONE ANYWAY.
And FWIW I wouldn’t be interested in marrying him/her, if that’s the policy. BUT to be fair, though, it looks like s/he did not put it in the terms of “not qualified”, but rather as “then don’t marry me”, which can be a perfectly fair and sensible warning that such a disagreement means the parties are looking for different things in the relationship and it would be a mistake to try and hammer the square peg into the hound hole.
Y 'know, my experience here at the Dope is that a statement of opinion not backed by rational argument is virtually guaranteed to be responded to with snark sooner or later(). And this one was middling in intensity, as far as those go.
()And that’s even before counting in the faction who feel that such an instance is actually deserving of outright contempt and derision (see any religion thread).
I am well aware this isn’t Great Debates. However, once a thread has taken on a certain tone and people have actually started having meaningful discourse on a particular topic, busting into the thread with a strong opinion not backed by any argument whatsoever in a cutesy way is bordering on obnoxious. It’s the equivalent of busting into a gay marriage thread in IMHO with a “god made Adam and Eve not Adam and STEEEEEEEVE!!!” post. The “no pre-nup” side of the thread has already been offered in a meaningful, intelligent and productive way, spoons comment was just an overly simplified drive-by adding nothing whatsoever to the conversation.
It will however limit the number of issues that one can fight for or about. It places constraints and sets terms of fairness that both spouses agreed to in rational, amicable times. It is about protecting important personal assets and protecting onself from assuming unreasonable debts.
The hard facts are that no one knows what tomorrow may hold.
For me it is an issue of absolute trust.
You could get into a tragic accident tomorrow and I could be in the position of deciding whether or not to unplug the respirator.
You could develop some degenerative disease that turns me into a caregiver for 10+ years.
Either of us could win a lottery tomorrow. Equally we could be wiped out financially, just as quickly, by some unforeseen mishap.
As for not knowing what your partner might turn into in the future; cheater, liar, vindictive, spiteful. It seems to me that there are no guarantees either way. You could turn out to be evil down the road, just as I could. So that seems a wash to me. Honestly, I wouldn’t be marrying anyone who’s character I was so unfamiliar with.
If you expect me to be a full partner in any hardship that might befall you then, in my opinion, you had better be prepared to be a full partner in any blessing that might come your way.
If you can trust me to stand by you, should you become disabled or infirm, trust me to make your end of life choices, you should be willing to trust me with your money, heirlooms, etc.
Yeah, but what I don’t understand is why we can’t even talk about it. If I should trust you, then I should make sure you understand what I want. So why shouldn’t we talk about how to handle eventualities, and why shouldn’t we write it down? (Oh, and by the way, if you want to handle my “end of life choices,” we have to, um, talk about it and then, oh yeah, sign a contract. In California it’s called an advance health care directive.)
Advance directives are what they are, but in California is it required for there to be an advance directive in order for a spouse (or next of kin) to make the decisions that need to be made should one be unable to make them themselves? What about in the absence of an advance directive?
Oh and I don’t know about advance directives in California, but I do know that in other states they are great as long as the spouse or next of kin agrees with them. They can be (and are) overridden by family request in certain circumstances. For example, my father had an advance directive dictating no “heroic measures” should be taken and no life support should be initiated if whatever ailment he suffered was irreversible. He succumbed to side effects of chemotherapy which caused irreversible, fast onset, pulmonary fibrosis. My mother made sure he was a “full code” and he was resuscitated after his first code and life support was initiated with us knowing full well he would never come off it. All of his end of life care was directly against what he had asked to be done in the advance directive. At that point, despite the advance directive all medical decisions were left in the hands of my mother (his spouse).
Everyone should understand that at least in some states (perhaps not all) marrying someone is indeed giving them, and hopefully trusting them with, the power to control your end-of-life decisions despite what steps you might take to do otherwise.
I cannot imagine marrying someone who you wouldn’t trust to make your decisions for you. And of course your wishes should be discussed, but that is as a far cry from trying to force them legally out of the picture (which is not what advance directives do, but is what it seems like you might think prudent).
Seriously, I am trying to understand but what exactly is a marriage in which each person keeps all property and income separate from the other (presumably debts as well), does not grant one another permission to make controlling decisions in the absence of one party, and in which the participants must constantly re-evaluate and reconsider what each should be entitled to when the marriage is over?
If you don’t trust your partner to remain stable (in character and integrity), do not wish to co-mingle your assets, property or finances, do not wish to give each other any kind of authority or decision making, then why on earth would you want to marry? Wouldn’t that be more like roommates or friends than life partners?
If marriage was about “absolute trust”, why does it require a legal component at all?
You can go around in circles about the “trust” thing forever. “If you trust me why do you need a pre-nup?” “Why won’t you sign the pre-nup unless you just want my wealth?” And so on. Fact of the matter is that a significant number of marriages end in divorce. So what is wrong with taking steps to spell out what each party feels entitled to before entering into such an agreement?
Marriage requires a legal component for only one reason and that is because the government says it does. In order to convey some of the benefits of marriage, such as making medical and/or financial decisions, inheritance rights, etc. the government requires a legal document. As far as I am concerned that’s it. Everything else of marriage, including the trust and commitment can be easily handled without any legal component at all.
There is nothing “wrong” with it if you don’t mind marrying someone doesn’t really want to be married (IMO) but wants a roommate with the legal benefits of marriage and who is already planning to be divorced. For me though, I would never enter into such a situation.
I guess I brought all this up is because I’ve heard horror stories from [male] co-workers about getting screwed over in divorces. Now, because I am a skeptic at heart, I took their sob stories with a collossal grain of salt, weighing that it was probably more likely they screwed themselves over much more than their wife could possibly do.
In general, at the end of the day, a TV, a nice car, etc are just stuff, and if I had to give them up, I’d miss them, but if they aren’t essential to my continued existence, I could get over it. However, the prospect of losing a house, or having someone get a piece of my own pension/retirement does concern me.
My own parents divorced when I was a teen and the divorce was very messy- they had a lot of communal property and the frugal and pragmatic spouse who invested carefully and managed all the finances got screwed over pretty badly. The only one that won out? My stepmom :smack: .
However we managed to end it amicably, and I still think he is a great guy (and amazing father). Our divorce was fair, reasonable and without rancor.