One of the first things my wife and I did, after getting married (possibly even before), was to set up a budget, including line items for how much money each of us could spend without being questioned by the other.
I often see people who have gotten divorced sign a pre-nup, but people I've spoken with around my age group (20-25) seem to be adamantly opposed to a pre-nup.
20-somethings believe in "life long marriage".
When I got divorced 5 years later I found out some legal details that made me rethink that position. Specifically, I found that even though my wife was a reasonable person and our split fairly amicable (as much as these things can be) that I wasn't necessarily off the hook for alimony. According to my understanding of California law, the judge can look at my divorce case and if he thinks my ex's income is too low compared to the mine then he can award her alimony even though it was not requested by her.
That opened my eyes and I saw pre-nups in a new light: They are just writing your own personal divorce laws so that you can be sure they are "fair" in your own eyes--They are not a sign of distrust.
It's like signing a confidentiality agreement in business. One party isn't assuming you're going to break the agreement, they're just spelling out the terms so everything is on the table.
You don't seem to understand. The legal system in the USA is currently configured to crush fathers. A pre-nup is not a way to say, "hey, I want to be able to leave you and the kids and not pay a dime!", it's a way to limit the soul-crushing damage the legal system will do to Dad when Mom decides he's not making enough money and wants a divorce, and the kids, and the house, and child support, and alimony.
I think, basically, people make dumb decisions when they should make smart ones. Buying a house, getting married, writing a book, etc. are not things that you can rush because you really want to get them done. They take time. The people that get screwed when doing these things didn't invest enough time.
>> When I decide to marry someone, I am not going to treat her like a security or an asset or some other financial instrument -- she's a human being
Historically, what has failed most often? Securities or human beings?
I'd bet on humans.
A friend's friend got problems a decade ago -- wife left him, his company crashed etc. A while later, he was diagnosed with whiplash (I think, could have been mild brain damage) from a traffic accident. He probably can't work hard again, but has managed to build quite a good life.
I can tell you that I had (amongst other effects) something like personality changes when I had a painless tooth infection for quite a while.
Things like that are probably more common than we think.
Even if you could guarantee your emotional state for years to come, I doubt you can plan for changes like that. Usually, we tend to think of people as too static.
Fan of Catalyst, by the way.
Sure. But is it a good idea to protect yourself from an unlikely event in the future at the expense of hurting your partner right now?
Well, what exactly is the "rationale" behind getting upset by a pre-nup?
A pre-nup means two things:
-- You acknowledge the very real possibility that your marriage might come to and end.
-- In case it ends, the guy doesn't want to part with half of everything he owns (and possibly alimony etc).
So, do you get offended because your guy "doesn't think it will last"?
When someone in a job interview asks you "where do you see yourself in 5 years", you probably think it's a silly question.
Do you honestly think you can predict how things will feel 5 years from now, let alone for the rest of your life? As Prince said, electric word, life - it means forever, and that's a mighty long time.
Or, do you get offended because your guy doesn't feel like he'd happily give you half of everything in case you do get divorced, because that obviously means he doesn't really truly love you, right?
As a man, you could turn the whole thing around and declare that any woman who declines a pre-nup is not worth marrying because she only thinks of you as a bag of money - a financial instrument, if you will.
To me, both of these reasons for getting offended by a pre-nup are just nonsense.
[My will says that my burial/funeral is not to cost more than what i paid for my wedding, which, with rings, is less than a thousand dollars. With inflation, good luck to whoever is stuck with my dead corpse. Most likely by then the only thing $1000 will get you is a straw mat.]
Also, to the people who've responded to you and elsewhere that prenuptial's should be forced by the government; well they're already invalid. Forcing someone to sign a legal contract to do something considered a basic human right (it's considered a social right to get married) automatically invalidates a prenuptial that has to legally be entered voluntarily by both parties.
Such ignorance of prenuptial law is probably why a huge amount of prenuptial's are invalidated by judges.
People change by health, hormones, situations, and children. That is a fact.
EVERYONE is in love when they get married. EVERYONE says "for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, 'til death do us part".
lets start a poll: would you want a pre-nup?
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120700651883978623-wV...