Prenuptial Agreements
by Ted Slater on 01/15/2009 at 1:44 PM
Some see them as a pragmatic way to protect yourself in case your marriage falls apart. Others see them as an expression of doubt -- in both the person and the institution -- something that may actually facilitate divorce.
Boundless Answers columnist John Thomas received a question about it a couple of months ago, and responded to it in his column.
It's pretty easy to figure out what he thinks about these things. In his first paragraph, he writes, "Pre-nups are, in my opinion, a tragic sign of the devaluing of the institution from covenant to contract."
What do you think? Are there possible benefits for some people? Are there dangers that John didn't even bring up?
HT: Mike Theemling and Christina (in green).
1. obewan said the following at 1:56 PM on Jan 15:
1
">>Pre-nups are, in my opinion, a tragic sign of the devaluing of the institution from covenant to contract.<<"
------------------------------------
Unfortunately, our current divorce laws have already degraded the institution of marriage from a covenant to a contract. What difference does it make if a modification to the contract is made in the form of a pre-nup? Don't blame the pre-nup if the marriage fails. The divorced couple always has the option to reconcile -even with a pre-nup.
For some people, they are a very good thing. My mother re-married as a widow at age 75. There was a combined million+ dollar estate and she wanted inheritance rights clearly defined. Likewise, her new spouse wanted his estate to go to the Moody Bible Institute. (He was very much opposed to children’s inheritances and thought we kids should get nothing.) Maybe I am biased since it worked in my favor, or did not since I will get none of his money when my mom dies.
2. IMO said the following at 1:56 PM on Jan 15:
2
What demographic tends to get prenups?
The wealthy? Couples on their 2nd, 3rd marriage?
I just don't think it's that common with middle and lowe class...
hmm just wondering
3. BDB said the following at 2:26 PM on Jan 15:
3
Hmmm...it makes me think of something my Contract Law professor taught us: that when someone puts something that appears unreasonable into the contract, before rejecting it or agreeing to it, ask them why they want that in there. This can open up a discussion about their fears and or other concerns.
I did this once with a building I was selling at work. It would be a lot of work to move our stuff, so we asked to lease part of the building for 20 years and put a $100,000 fee it if the buyer ever made us move. To my shock, they accepted this condition. Told me they seriously wanted the building. Everything worked out.
It seems like one time someone might ask for a prenup is when their parents have money, and their parents push them to protect their inheritance. My response to this situation would be that I would sign one saying the parents could never, ever give us any monetary gift - no vacations, don't pay for the wedding, no more than nominal gifts for future children, etc. They give all their money away to charities and nothing to us ever. The reason is that the parents would seem to be using their money to try and control the marriage of their kid. This kind of interference would create all sorts of problems. Better to draw a boundary and not have the interference that comes with "the one with the gold makes the rules." Keep your gold. God is my provider.
As an old Irish proveb says, never marry for money. You'll borrow it cheaper!
4. Adam T. said the following at 3:02 PM on Jan 15:
4
As usual, I agree with most of what John Thomas says. I'm getting married in the summer, and we're certainly not having a pre-nup, for all the sorts of reasons John points out.
Still, I do think that sadly, for many men in our society marriage is a fool's risk, because the laws so heavily favour the woman in case of divorce.
Look at what John says:
From a practical standpoint, who do you think will take his tightrope walk more seriously and be more committed to its success — the walker with the net or without? Which will give his everything to make it work?
...
Pre-nups remove one more reason to fight to make it work.
The problem is that John is coming at this very one-sidedly: yes, this is true for the higher-earning party in the marriage (traditionally the man), but it's going to be the other way around for the other party!
In other words, a pre-nup may make the man more likely to give up and get divorced, but it should simultaneously make the woman less likely to pursue divorce.
5. Amelia said the following at 3:20 PM on Jan 15:
5
Depending upon the state, marriage can be ended unilaterally. This means one side can dissolve the marriage no matter what the other says.
In other words, the state of marriage in our legal system isn't even that of a contract.
Check out Louisiana - they are the only state to have covenant marriage on the books. Basically, an engaged man and woman can elect to have a legally different marriage. This requires about six months of approved premarital counseling, then once married, there can be no divorce except in situations of adultery, physical/sexual abuse, or incarceration. Even when divorce is allowed, extra marriage counseling (I think a year of it) is required before a divorce. Couples already married at the time the law was made can make their marriage a covenant marriage under the law.
I think this is a fabulous idea. If we could get this on the books in more states, then pastors in those states could (if they saw it fit) decide to perform only covenant marriages. While this doesn't make marriage easy or perfect, of course, it does make legal marriage much closer to Biblical marriage than something less even than a contract.
-
If anybody's heard of the Dave Ramsey (well-known Christian financial counselor) take on pre-nups, he says (and I'm paraphrasing) that he used to be 100% against them because it's like planning your divorce in advance and he doesn't recommend divorce, either for financial or moral reasons.
However, he says there are exceptions in the case of large assets in the millions, primarily because in his experience, that kind of money sometimes attracts weird people/relatives/etc. In those circumstances he does recommend an individualized pre-nup.
6. Ann said the following at 4:06 PM on Jan 15:
6
I think this is an interesting discussion... first I'd like to say thanks to Amelia for that tidbit on my home state- I'm currently not residing in Louisiana but I LOVE the idea of having that kind of marriage and I'm definitely gonna check it out.
secondly, I'm going to disagree with the concept that prenups are as a whole bad, and that Christians should never have them. I think it's irresponsible- especially if you have kids- to do anything which doesn't protect your ability to care for them should things happen. I think there's a way to do that Biblically- I don't know that much about them, but I feel like you can decide what you want and why- I would want to have my husband get full possession of our house and assets if I, say, ran off with a jobless guy I met on a mexican vacation. If it's possible (and I think it is) to have adultery as the circumstance the pre-nup applies, then I'm all for it. Sorry if that's a little vague, the concepts make sense to me even if the details are rather hazy. Just thought I throw out that kinda dissenting opinion
7. Becky said the following at 4:19 PM on Jan 15:
7
My friend married an "outstanding" Christians, by everyone's definition. Leader in the church and all that. Then after 5 years of marriage he wanted out. Since it was "his paycheck that bought everything" he wanted it all back. Left her with the cats, debt, and bad credit. Even took the car that her parents had given them.
My grandfather, widowed, didn't sign a prenup when he remarried and his wife (both Christians), who did not like anyone on his side of the family, took everything when he died. My mother and her siblings got nothing of not only his but of their mother.
Prenups unfortunately are sometimes needed in todays world because to many Christians out there don't take marriage seriously or they have no qualms about being unethical or immoral when it comes to money and inheritance.
8. Christina (in green) said the following at 5:29 PM on Jan 15:
8
I realized once that when you go into something believing that when you get into it, there's no way out, the more likely you are to make the best of it...and make it work in a manner that is pleasant more often than not.
Even in today's society, where marriage is so easy to walk into and walk out of, if you set your mind and heart to believing there's no getting out of this (and both partners have made that committment to themselves), then there's more chances for success.
I strongly believe pre-nups undermine the fortitude and discipline to make a marriage work.
Of course, as Adam T said, its kinda difficult to talk about this when it usually is the man's money that's going to be lost without a pre-nup.
I've made it a point in my life...and I don't know where I got this idea, but it sounds kinda Anne Shirly-ish...to know what I would do in difficult situations before I was ever faced with those situations and committ myself to that answer if I believe there is a right and wrong answer. When raw, powerful emotions get in the way, it is a thousand times harder to make the right decision.
So, I guess resolving in your heart and mind that divorce is not an option helps when the going gets tough.
9. Mike said the following at 5:36 PM on Jan 15:
9
I'm generally in agreement that prenups are a bad idea. However, there's an important consideration: If you are remarrying, your new spouse's assets can be at risk from your ex-spouse through child support or asset claim laws that include your new spouse's assets in modification claims.
In other words, your ex can come after your new spouse's salary and assets by modifying the divorce decree ex post facto (in some states) unless you protect them by separating them with a prenup.
Nice, huh?
10. Jackie said the following at 5:37 PM on Jan 15:
10
As an attorney who occasionally drafts premarital agreements for my clients, I feel I should weigh in against the idea, contrary to the party line of my profession, for the same reasons stated above. I have come to the conclusion that government has no place in regulating the institution of marriage, because it is a covenant ordained by God, not a contract. Those who request premarital agreements tend to view marriage as a contract. Fine for them, because marriage is a covenant available to non-believers, for their benefit from a loving and merciful God. However, premarital agreements are not appropriate for one with the covenant viewpoint. How could you become one if you always wanted to remain separate?
Adam T: On what do you base this: "for many men in our society marriage is a fool's risk, because the laws so heavily favour the woman in case of divorce"? Divorce laws are state specific, and vary greatly depending upon whether you live in a community property state or not.
Amelia: Arizona also has covenant marriages on the books.
11. Kristen said the following at 6:05 PM on Jan 15:
11
One of the good exceptions that I can think of is an elderly couple I know. Both were widowed (married well over 50 years apiece) prior to marrying and wanted to keep their estates separate to ease in the closing of estates when one dies. That way, each person's family would get to keep the estate left by their biological parents. Much less messy, yet they shared everything, including paying equal amounts of bills, etc.
12. hxcjf said the following at 6:17 PM on Jan 15:
12
The goal should always be to strengthen the relationship and bring people together. Pre-nups can either do that or do the opposite. Two people who marry early in life before career, assets or kids shouldn't have any need to get a prenup because any assets they get should be shared because they acquired them as a team and the prenup would divide them and disadvantage the wife. But people who get married later in life could have ulterior motives for marriage, such as marrying for financial gain, and a pre-nup could ensure that doesn't happen. It ought to always serve to make a union stronger and ensure the motives of those making the union are sincere.
13. Chris said the following at 6:29 PM on Jan 15:
13
My wife works for a judge who handles family law, and I can tell you that pre-nups can help, especially when there are large monies involved and one has to worry about what's marital property, what's not, who owns a business, etc. Even though each state has laws about "what's what" you still end up with issues. In divorce, it's not always as simple as "everything belongs to us". Unfaithful spouses have destroyed businesses by draining bank accounts and claiming it was marital property so they had a right to take the money.
Look at it this way: if a divorce never happens, then a pre-nup never really comes into effect. As long as both parties are faithful to each other and the marriage, there's nothing to worry about.
But if you bring $10 million to the marriage and then your partner decides to run off with Dick or Jane and wants half of it, why let him/her both break the marriage vow and get rewarded for it? Unless specifically exempted by state law or a valid pre-nup, whatever you bring to the marriage becomes marital property and is up for equitable distribution.
14. Emily said the following at 6:41 PM on Jan 15:
14
This is kind of ancillary to the point of Ted's post, but the legal problems in comments 1 and 7 (second/later marriages where inheritance planning is needed for two separate families) would probably best be addressed by wise estate planning, not a prenup.
15. Thomas said the following at 7:27 PM on Jan 15:
15
It is a fact that women initiate the majority of the divorces, so perhaps a pre-nup is a good thing in some cases in that it discourages a wife to divorce the husband when she knows she won't be walking out with a huge financial settlement?
16. BDB said the following at 9:43 PM on Jan 15:
16
Oh Ann (#6), I hadn't thought of that! Using the pre-nup to create a covenental marriage! That would be interesting!
Incidentally, for those with substantial assets and/or children from a previous marriage, you can also create trusts that include houses and other property and passes it on to the children. For example, the widowed dad can put his assets into a trust that passes to his children upon his death, but gives his 2nd wife the right to live in the house until her death. Also he would purchase life insurance naming is wife as beneficiary to ensure that she had enough to live on.
Real Property has different rules, too. Both pieces of real estate I've purchased were originally purchased by the male when he was single, but when I bought them, he was married. It wasn't community property if they owned it before they got married.
I will say that one of the scary things about community-property states is that student loans are individual debts. So, say you go to school to prepare for a profession, incur a lot of debt, and get married when you graduate. In a community property state, your increase in income is attributed to the marriage, not to the degree. I don't know of any situations where child or spousal support take into account student loan payments. It would be truly frightening to choose the wrong spouse, have them walk out, and be forced to give up the income from the profession - especially because you are unable to discharge the student loan debt in bankruptcy.
Granted, those kinds of fears have nothing to do with trusting God's guidance and provision.
17. Leah said the following at 10:08 PM on Jan 15:
17
Obewan said Unfortunately, our current divorce laws have already degraded the institution of marriage from a covenant to a contract. What difference does it make if a modification to the contract is made in the form of a pre-nup?
Ah, quite a difference. A pre-nup is put in place by the people actually getting married. The divorce laws are not. A pre-nup is a manifestation of the attitude "this might not work, so here's the safety net". You shouldn't go into marriage with that attitude. The divorce laws have nothing to do with the attitude of the people getting married.
Don't blame the pre-nup if the marriage fails. The divorced couple always has the option to reconcile -even with a pre-nup.
Yes and No. The couple certainly has the option to reconcile, but a couple without a pre-nup might think twice before going through the divorce process, whereas those with the pre-nup probably wouldn't see any point in thinking twice. Christina said it well when she said I strongly believe pre-nups undermine the fortitude and discipline to make a marriage work.
18. Kate (who is applying to law school!) said the following at 12:00 AM on Jan 16:
18
Jackie-
That's really cool to think about. I have been thinking about family law and child advocacy, and everyone keeps telling me do divorce law for the money. :) I did an internship where I learned a lot about the importance of living wills, but I didn't get to see any pre-nups being created.
Now, I can't imagine me ever having enough enough money for my loved ones to suggest a prenuptial agreement . . . And I would definitely balk if my future husband asked me to sign one. The only time I can see being ok with it is if his family had a certain asset (say the family home in Newport) that they very firmly wanted to stay in their family. And as much as they loved me, they wanted to be sure that if something did go terribly wrong, that asset wouldn't be lost. I could be ok with that, it wasn't mine in the first place and I'm not marrying for the chance to get a beautiful home in Newport, I'm marrying to have a life with someone.
19. TINA said the following at 1:43 AM on Jan 16:
19
....I agree with Dave Ramsey.... when large amounts of money and assets come into the picture I think it is wise to have a prenup....kinda foolish not to....christian or not money has a way of bringing pleasure and destruction in ones life why not clarify your wishes then its known up front in case of divorce or even death..your not claiming divorce in your life or even wanting it just being wise.....how many times ya hear pastors having affair with the secretary? happens more then you can imagine the whole Church gets in a "up roar" when they should really be getting in a "up-prayer" point is human behavior is unpredictable no matter what your position in life is.. on the pulpit or in the field....
20. Amir Larijani said the following at 4:48 AM on Jan 16:
20
I'll never knock someone for opting for a prenup, any more than I'd knock someone for buying life insurance. Everyone has different levels of risk preference and risk tolerance. Some of that can be a faith issue; some of it is prudence. It is on you to resolve with God which it is.
The issue is not prenuptial agreements; those are merely a symptom of two larger issues: (a) divorce risks, and (b) the financial impact of divorce. Both are higher than they were 40 years ago, and have led to a whole host of unintended consequences.
Still, anyone who thinks a prenup is a foolproof safeguard to mitigate the financial impacts of divorce, would be terribly mistaken.
Judges have the authority--and have been known--to throw out prenuptial agreements deemed to be "unreasonable", thus rendering moot such attempts at risk management.
Ergo, prenups are hardly airtight. My prediction: insurance companies will one day offer "Divorce Insurance".
The good news: The Christian couple who regularly attends church and prays together has a very low probability of divorce.
The bad news: that probability is not zero.
On the other hand, life is life. There is no such thing as zero risk. Not in this life anyhow.
21. Amir Larijani said the following at 4:56 AM on Jan 16:
21
Becky says:
In this case, a prenup--or lack thereof--was not so much the problem, but rather the lack of proper estate planning. Good people sometimes fail to do this.
No one enjoys dealing with matters related his or her own death. Still, from a financial planning standpoint, there can be a whole rash of problems that bite you if you overlook estate planning.
Prenup or no prenup, at least get a will put together. If you have enough assets and parties involved, you might need some legal counsel for that. It will cost you some money now, but it will save your family a world of problems after you are gone.
22. Loris said the following at 7:11 AM on Jan 16:
22
I think a pre-nup is necessary for a second marriage to make sure family heirlooms are distributed to the correct children. My father and aunt did not inherit their grandmother's china, etc, because all of their father's possessions went to his second wife and her children.
23. obewan said the following at 7:26 AM on Jan 16:
23
#14. Emily had the following to say on Jan 15 at 6:41 PM:
">>This is kind of ancillary to the point of Ted's post, but the legal problems in comments 1 and 7 (second/later marriages where inheritance planning is needed for two separate families) would probably best be addressed by wise estate planning, not a prenup.<<"
------------------------------------
You say that without any understanding of my mother's situation.
My mother married a blind disabled man. She is a nurse, and he needed nursing care. Since she was going to be the major contributor, she expected his assets to pay for all food and housing in return for the care she was giving.
The pre-nup also included an agreement about whose assets would pay for whose nursing home care. There was no concern that either party would not have enough money to pay for long term care on their own. The concern was over whose remaining assets went where.
There were trusts and wills, BUT they had to be AGREED to UP FRONT before the marriage. Hence, the pre-nup-trust-wills agreement all in one package.
To make a long story short, he died after a battle with cancer, and due to my mother's care avoided the nursing home. A savings of several hundred thousand dollars from his assets went to the Moody Bible Institute.
I may find agreement that pre-nups are not good for two people just starting out from scratch, but they make sense for many people who marry later in life with substantial assets.
24. Tiffany said the following at 8:17 AM on Jan 16:
24
I find it interesting that on the one hand, people are saying that government should not be involved in marriage. That to the government, it's a contract and not the bibically based convenant Christians understand it to be.
On the other hand, there seems to be support for legally-sanctioned "convenant marriages."
So which one is it?
25. Tiffany said the following at 8:22 AM on Jan 16:
25
I also find the whole "people will think twice about getting divorced if there's no pre-nup" argument interesting.
Is it godly, virtuous, or in any way desireable to have someone stay married just for money?
26. Scott said the following at 8:51 AM on Jan 16:
26
The problem I have with pre-nups is that it's sort of "holding something back" per se. When a man and a woman get married, they are joined together into one flesh. To have a pre-nup is sort of saying "I will only let you have 95% of me- I will have this one little thing in my back pocket".
It seems like it's in the same vein as someone who lays 95% of their life before Christ, but says "Oh, no, not this part! You are not touching this!" There's a lack of trust (or a smattering of pride, or both) in that, and I see it the same way in marraige.
Marraige is risky, guys and gals. Dating is risky (you run the risk of rejection), marraige is risky (it could turn out terrible!), but real men and women are willing to say "Lord, I trust you with this risk, and I trust that you are soverign and will take care of me, despite whatever happens".
One final note: Pre-nups are different than life (or car) insurance in my mind, because ultimately, divorce is controllable. Divorce doesn't "happen" like a car breakdown "happens"- there is much more control and decision making in starting a divorce than it is when a car breaks down. You can maintain a marraige, and both parties can work toward keeping it together, and divorce won't happen. You can maintain a car, and everyone can work toward keeping it working, but it's gonna breakdown at some point.
27. Dan said the following at 9:15 AM on Jan 16:
27
I like the covenant marriage idea from #5, but I think as the church we should already be holding ourselves to a higher standard than what our American legal system, which is intended for believers and non-believers, holds marriage to be. What if all pastors required that type of counseling before they married a couple in their church? And what if we stopped looking the other way when our brothers and sisters get divorced for reasons other than infidelity or abuse? I don't mean we should be gossip-mongers, but we should always come together as a body to hold marriage high and support those of is who are in marriage relationships. This means accountability, yes, but also loving support and effort given from the rest of the church. Too many times we fall because we refuse to accept the love and support that the people around us can offer because God has put them in our lives. Divorce is bad, in most cases and for believers and non-believers alike, but a some point, as Christ-followers, we have to stop relying on legislation to help us do what we know we must do because we love God.
28. Kelly said the following at 9:35 AM on Jan 16:
28
I'm pretty sure I'd get a pre-nup if there was a huge imbalance in the amount of assets both were bringing to the marriage. Sorry, I know that undermines trust, but I have the following reasons:
(1) I am a poor judge of character. I put tremendous faith in people and have been let down in ways I never thought. (I hope I'd never misjudge my future-husband so badly but only God knows what will happen!)
(2) You never know how someone might change. So many stories I've heard of young couples in love, married, then one of them runs off/commits adultery and you NEVER thought it would happen to them.
It's a fallen world and under divorce law, no matter whose 'fault' or choice it is, one party can win everything if they lie in court. I've seen it happen. :(
(3) Yes, that terrible concept, assets. Since I believe in life-long marriage, I would hate for half of my assets to go to someone who divorced me rather than to my future children or my neices and nephews (if I don't have kids). I know, it's God's money not mine, but the rest of my family is quite poor and I'm the one who can help when even the banks won't give them a loan.
(I hope that doesn't sound really arrogant!)
Hmmm. Does that mean I don't trust God to take care of me and them in the case of a divorce? Or am I attempting to be a responsible steward and make sure that I'm not married for my money, and that my family can be provided for?
29. Mike Theemling said the following at 9:44 AM on Jan 16:
29
Playing Devil's Advocate here.
What if I were to say you could face an event that happens to up to a third of all married couples which may result in:
- Your losing half of all your assets
- Requiring you to make payments of up to half your monthly salary for years
- Restricting visits to your children to once a week
- Being unable to claim your children as dependents for tax purposes
- Can still occur even if you do everything in your power to prevent it from happening
- Happens to "Christians" and non Christians at the same rate
Would you want insurance from such a thing?
Ever since the advent of "no-fault" divorce, for some, it is an easy way out with little to lose and a lot to gain.
Now I don't believe that most couples entering marriage have in the back of their minds a diabolical plan for implementing divorce as a way to make money. However, I do believe that the ease of getting divorces combined with the minimized consquences of it is part of the reason that it's as high as it is.
What bothers me is that many divorces are filed not because of infidelity or physical abuse, but simply because people feel that they "don't love the other person anymore", "want to be free", have "irreconcilable differences", etc. The problem is when those that file divorce under these dubious reasons, sometimes against the other partner's will, they can stand to gain a lot if they were not the breadwinner of the family.
I do understand that by having a prenup, it can be construed as "expecting" the divorce to occur, or at least making it easier to file for one if you don't like it. However, as posted earlier, some people (esp the affluent) are targeted because of their wealth, and it's difficult to say who will stay with you for the long haul and those who will just take the money and run, even if that was not their intention to begin with (and being Christians does not make anyone immune).
30. P&P said the following at 10:08 AM on Jan 16:
30
My feeling is that if you really don't plan on getting divorced, you shouldn't have any problem signing a prenup, right? After all, you're not going to be using it.
I think they're a good idea. There have been some tragic cases where a spouse becomes disabled and the able-bodied partner leaves with very little support. Ugly, but true.
Also, if there is significant family money involved in terms of a trust fund, heirlooms or family business, it's also a good idea to have agreements to protect all family members involved.
I think it's also a good way to open up communication between a couple, similar to pastoral counseling prior to a marriage. If you're forced to open your financial books to one another (and plenty of people don't), you'll be able to see how they treat money. I've seen situations where one spouse (in two cases the man, in one the woman) wasn't entirely honest in the amout of debt they had prior to the marriage.
Guess what? All three couples divorced (take a wild guess why) and the spouse who hadn't incurred the debt was stuck with a portion of the payments. A prenup would have forced full financial disclosure as well as allowed the non-debt-ridden spouse to leave the marriage without having to pay off debts they did't incur.
31. Travis said the following at 11:17 AM on Jan 16:
31
I never would have married my wife if she wanted a pre-nup and vice versa. You're making a covenant before God to stay together forever. So why would you need to worry about who gets what in the case of a divorce.
To me its like saying your vows with your fingers crossed. Sure we're gonna stay together forever, but just in case.
32. IMO said the following at 1:33 PM on Jan 16:
32
ok I think I get it: We are afraid to be poor? We are afraid that our family will be poor? We are afraid that life will not be fair?
How about just getting to the root of the problem?
The comments that talk about having a prenup and reasons for them are valid. And seem practical and reasonable.
Here's the thing: It is practical and reasonable for a Christian, who has Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, to trust Him to meet ALL our needs. (And maybe what He thinks are our "needs" are different than what we think they are)
To depend on God FULLY each and every day is a blessing.
Let's get back to God's Word (and not Man's experience) to form our opinions and worldviews.
Trials are good according to God's Word. God also disciplines those He loves. Hardships come. We must endure. Share in Christ's suffering. Physical blessings come and go. But Who is the constant?
If my husband left me and I was left penniless.....praise be to God! He will use that horrible sinful situation for His Glory! I know it. We are suppose to have full confidence in God. I think we take way too much for granted.
Never read the book...but the title "When People are Big and God is Small" comes to mind.
I'm not trying to start trouble here or anything. And I'm not trying to sugar coat hardships or painful events or anything like that.
I'm suggesting we all look hard at the real issues. I think prenups are just a symptom.
Hope I made sense. If I need to clear something up, just let me know.
33. BDB said the following at 1:35 PM on Jan 16:
33
It occurs to me that Pride and Prejudice has a big plot line running through it about a character who lacks character, and tends to focus on marriage as a way to solve his personally-incurred debts. It's not a new problem, eh?
34. Ted Slater said the following at 1:53 PM on Jan 16:
34
BDB -- How long before you reference Anne of Green Gables in one of your comments? Hm. I'm beginning to question your masculinity, my friend. ;-)
35. BDB said the following at 2:09 PM on Jan 16:
35
It occurs to me that Pride and Prejudice has a big plot line running through it about a character who lacks character, and tends to focus on marriage as a way to solve his personally-incurred debts. It's not a new problem, eh?
36. BDB said the following at 2:24 PM on Jan 16:
36
Sorry, Ted, I've never read that series. Or Twilight.
Why would you question my masculinity when you know my car has vastly more horsepower than needed for a normal person?
37. BDB said the following at 2:39 PM on Jan 16:
37
OK Ted, how about this? I can watch the Keira Knightly version of the movie over and over again...without sound...
38. N from Alberta Canada said the following at 4:22 PM on Jan 16:
38
Read through Mr. Thomas' response and wanted to share my two bits.
Divorce is a reality in society. It is real for believers and non-believers. Remember the common-law couples at Sunday service? I digress.
Please don't look at the prenuptial agreement/cohabitation agreements (for common-law situations) as another affront to the covenant of marriage or another way to cheer on divorce.
It has become a practical necessity because people choose not to marry (e.g. cohabitation agreements) but live together. Prenups became necessary because marriages aren't saved and because people forget to continue with their responsibilities to children and households after the marriage ends.
Let's talk about why these agreements have come into play and what we can do about the root causes...let's not be brief and say believers just shouldn't use them because they encourage divorce. To me..that's like saying the word "pornography" at a Church service is going to incite people to download when they get home...
It's about addressing root causes not debating a symptom that developed as a result of failing marriages and common-law unions...
39. Christina (in green) said the following at 5:06 PM on Jan 16:
39
Why would you question my masculinity when you know my car has vastly more horsepower than needed for a normal person?
*ahem* - overcompensating - *ahem*
On *slightly* more serious side, don't you have a lot of sisters, BDB?
40. Amir Larijani said the following at 8:49 PM on Jan 16:
40
Scott says:
A prenup resembles insurance in that it mitigates against the risk that your wife may decide to leave you one day, in spite of whatever her expressed sentiments are today.
(Ditto for the wife with respect to the husband.)
Again, I'm not saying that you must--or must not--go for a prenup.
All I'm saying is that
(a) A prenup is a financial product that, like an insurance policy, seeks to mitigate financial risks posed by a possible event.
(b) If you desire a prenup, then it is between you and God to resolve whether that desire is motivated by prudence or fear.
There is a legitimate debate over the point beyond which risk-mitigation becomes an act of fear rather than prudence. In that light, prenups aren't the only issue here.
As for risk mitigation, consider this: today, many Christians are seeking mates without the benefit of social structures--family, friends--that once helped in the mate selection process in prior generations.
It is not uncommon to use the Internet to find a mate; many people are looking well outside their ZIP codes. They are, in fact, jumping through more hoops than people in prior generations did, and--combined with easier divorce laws--are facing risks that were unheard of on a general level compared to other generations.
If it's a distance relationship, all you have to go on is that your prospective mate professes to be a Christian, has provided some visible evidence--the veracity of which is not nearly as airtight as you may think--and may have some friends who appear to vouch for her or him.
Against that backdrop, a prenup might reflect an act of prudence.
Especially if one--in the spirit of Proverbs--has sought an abundance of counsel from fellow believers, and, having prayed about it, has resolved that it would be a prudent path that protects both his and her interests.
41. Jo said the following at 2:11 AM on Jan 17:
41
Scott #26: "divorce is controllable."
Since one spouse can demand a divorce against the other spouse's will, it's not completely controllable. I've never heard of pre-nups being done over here (UK) except by the very rich, so it's not something I'd anticipate coming up in my situation anyway. But I can see the arguments for and against. It's a tricky one.
42. Carrie (the original) said the following at 7:53 AM on Jan 17:
42
I can't, for the life of me, imagine when a prenuptial agreement would ever be a wise thing.
At the heart of it, it's saying that "I'm going to leave room for us to back out of our vows". I think that the financial pit-falls of divorce are good reminder for the couple that divorce is a bad thing.
Even my unbelieving parents (mother/step-father) don't have a pre-nup and I think that the potential financial hardships have been an indication to them that divorce is to be taken seriously. Especially since each of them went through a divorce before.
Amir (#40) - I think that even in a distance relationship there is still much that can be discovered that could assure each party of their devotion to their vows they would take on their wedding.
Taking into consideration your last paragraph, I think that if one is seriously heading the warnings of Proverbs they would be able to tell if the other party is "marriageable" or "un-marriageable".
On top of all that you have the assurance of the Heavenly Father that He will never leave or forsake His children or let them beg for bread. I have seen this demonstrated. I know this is true.
43. Mike Theemling said the following at 8:18 AM on Jan 17:
43
Jo (#41),
The reason why you don't hear of prenups in the UK is that for the most part, they aren't enforced there.
44. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:11 AM on Jan 17:
44
Carrie says:
Talk is cheap. People can "assure" each other in distance relationships, just as they can in not-so-distance relationships. And such marriages--among the most professing Christians who enter the marriage with all the covenant talk that only a Reformer could imagine--can and do fail.
Then are you suggesting that every divorce that happens, occurs because the husband--or wife--was not prudent enough beforehead?
That may be a convenient rationale by which to unfairly judge divorcees, but it does not advance any substantial understanding of this issue.
Oh, and in Biblical times, there was a "prenup" system of sorts: it was called the "bride price".
For a man to divorce his wife, he had to pay an agreed-upon "bride price".
This was a means of protecting the interests of the wife--who had no say-so in the divorce--and her family.
This helped mitigate her financial risks, as her post-divorce prospects were quite bleak.
The issue here is not God's reliability, but rather Man's. The cost of a divorce is not measurable in dollar terms, as the impact is far more than material.
On the other hand, prenups provide a means by which the interests of both can be reasonably protected.
And while I would not want one for myself--I don't have a compelling need for one--I know others for whom such a mechanism would be prudent.
45. Carrie (the original) said the following at 11:26 AM on Jan 17:
45
People can "assure" each other in distance relationships, just as they can in not-so-distance relationships.
True, but I'm not referring to mere words.
Then are you suggesting that every divorce that happens, occurs because the husband--or wife--was not prudent enough beforehead?
My gut tells me "yes", but seeing as I've never been married before, it would be foolish for me to make such a statement definitively.
And while I would not want one for myself--I don't have a compelling need for one--I know others for whom such a mechanism would be prudent.
After posting my comment this morning I got into a conversation with a friend. She referred to a woman that we both know who has been recently divorced. This woman, if she were to marry again, would probably be wise to do a prenuptial agreement.
I couldn't ever justify getting one myself. For the reasons I previously stated.
46. BDB said the following at 1:43 PM on Jan 17:
46
christina (in green) (#39) wrote:
>>*ahem* - overcompensating - *ahem*<<
Naw, overcompensating is a Dodge Viper. The 4-door Honda Accord will always be seen as a "family car." And there's no logical reason to get the V6.
Unless, of course, you're a guy. No one tailgates me on the freeway, I'll tell you that. They're not fast enough...
>>On *slightly* more serious side, don't you have a lot of sisters, BDB?<<
Just one. With a toddler.
I am attempting to read all the classics. As C.S. Lewis correctly points out, reading old books is a good way to recognize the prejudices one's own time. And it's more enjoyable since I don't need to write papers deconstructing them.
47. BDB said the following at 5:34 PM on Jan 17:
47
You know, this thread has gotten me thinking about people who conceal financial information. There are ways to address that without a pre-nup.
Today I got a letter from BNY Mellon saying their vendor lost archive tapes that had my personal information on them, and giving me a free 24-month credit monitoring through Experian. That's just lovely.
I also check my credit report through Equifax. I did so again today. I hadn't done it in a year and I found 3 mistakes. I'll file the disputes to get those fixed.
One rule I have is that I won't marry anyone who doesn't let me read their credit report in advance. Not asking for their SSN, but they can get a copy, block out their number, and let me read it. They can read mine of course, too.
But on the way more trusting side, I suppose it's possible that a woman would ask me to help her with her taxes ahead of time, too. Seeing someone's tax records in advance would go a long ways towards trusting how they handle money. I'd never demand it. But if they asked, sure, that would provide a high degree of comfort.
48. Leah said the following at 7:15 PM on Jan 17:
48
Tiffany (25) when I said that people without a pre-nup might think twice about getting divorce, it had nothing to do with the money.
Pre-nups significantly help the divorce process along. Ask anyone who's been divorced and you'll find out it's a long, complicated, tedious task which requires not only a lot of money, but paperwork, time, etc etc etc. Pre-nups make the whole process a lot easier, and hence, make divorce look like a more appealing option than if the pre-nup was not there.
But I suppose when it comes down to it, anything that keeps a married couple together is better than divorce, even if it is money. God hates divorce. I'm sure he's no advocate of staying married just for money, but my guess is that he'd prefer that to the divorce. It would give the couple time and opportunity to reconcile, at the very least.
49. Jo said the following at 4:29 AM on Jan 18:
49
Mike 43:
Ooh, that's interesting. I didn't know that. Guess there wouldn't be a whole lot of point in anyone getting a pre-nup over here then anyway!
50. Christina said the following at 8:06 PM on Jan 18:
50
The other thing that comes into place in a pre-nup...
Do you trust your spouse?
Considering at the heart of the vows and what husbands and wives are called to do in scripture is to TRUST eachother (men, lay down your lives; women, submit as to the Lord), doesn't a pre-nup essentially say "I don't trust you" while vowing to trust?
Why would I want to marry a guy who doesn't trust me? And why would a guy want to marry me if I didn't trust him?
This isn't about the judicial system and the divorce laws and the favoring of whatever gender.
It is about trust. And trust can come at great risk to ourselves when placed in anyone but God...and yet, he expects us to continue trusting HIM as we obey him and live out trusting relationships with our spouses.
Regardless of what happens in the marriage, if you are obedient (and even if your'e not), trusting that God is in control is crucial to ANY aspect of life, no less so than in marriage.
So...I think that pre-nups undermine our vows by by undermining the trust that should be present in such a relationship and also undermines the trust we should have in God to protect us.
51. Mac said the following at 10:54 AM on Jan 21:
51
Someone mentioned the whole covenant marriage thing? My brother got one of those, and he and his wife have neared divorce several times. Of course, to obtain a divorce, they'd have to attend, I think, ten weeks of marital counselling. And you have to be able to get along long enough to get to counselling in the first place. This basically makes it impossible for my hard headed sibling to get out of it. Since they're both really decent people, albeit stubborn, this makes for a hilarious rollercoaster marriage, similar to a cute romantic comedy.
They've, out of necessity, matured and grown to love each other better through it. But, it is scary to think of someone in a violent relationship stuck in a covenant marriage.
52. Stan said the following at 3:13 AM on Feb 1:
52
This is in response to Christina:
"Trust" is too risky for men these days. Men can no longer allow women to manipulate them with shaming language. If I trust my fiance and 8 years later she takes me to the cleaners, where does that leave me?
A pre-nup is insurance. Much needed insurance.
More and more women are asking for pre-nups. Unlike men, they are encouraged to get their future husband to sign one. Their loyalty is not questioned.
Women are finally on the other side of the divorce coin. They have now felt the financial devastation. They are wising up and demanding protection.