4 ms·

> This isn’t just about money, his partner now in theory is eligible to half (or more if there are kids) of everything he owns including any intellectual proper

> This isn’t just about money, his partner now in theory is eligible to half (or more if there are kids) of everything he owns including any intellectual property he have created. But that is what marriage is. Everything in a relationship is jointly owned. People who think they can somehow skirt around this don't seem to understand that. Marriage is basically the legal recognition that two people are to be treated as one. They are a team. If people can't handle that, don't get married.... > This can go well beyond simple greed and be more about ones life work. It isn't "ones life work". It is "their lives work". Remember, they are a team. > It also puts effectively his company at risk because the company doesn’t have 2 founders but 3 as the partner can get half of his share or even more in the divorce. But thanks to the marriage, what is his is also hers. By nature of them being treated like a single entity. Why shouldn't she get half of their share? That share has material value, therefore both partners are entitled to it.

dogma1138 9y ago
>But that is what marriage is. Everything in a relationship is jointly owned. People who think they can somehow skirt around this don't seem to understand that. Marriage is basically the legal recognition that two people are to be treated as one. They are a team. If people can't handle that, don't get married.... No this isn't what a marriage is, historically this isn't how it worked, and only for a very short time while there still was a very different trade between the partners where divorces became universally acceptable when this was practiced. >It isn't "ones life work". It is "their lives work". Remember, they are a team. They are partners, it doesn't mean that all of their personal achievements are a team effort, in fact the vast majority of their achievements would still be individual. >But thanks to the marriage, what is his is also hers. By nature of them being treated like a single entity. Why shouldn't she get half of their share? That share has material value, therefore both partners are entitled to it. Which is why you get a prenup It is no longer the case when the woman trades 1-2 decades of her life to raise 3 children and needs protection/assurance that she will not be thrown out when her societal value effectively has been reduced to zero with nothing. My biggest disappointment in this whole ordeal is that this isn't a case of a woman getting succeeding an asking for a postnup tho with how divorces are still settled especially in no fault states she would be much more protected against predatory behaviour in that case. What people seem to constantly ignore is that CA is a no fault state, she can just as well decide 5 years down the line that she much rather keep the house and 50% of the assets and start a new life because now she can afford to live on her own without any financial worries. People yapping about that it's not fair to deny someone a full share of a work that they have not participated in, but have no problem with that person basically having a nuclear trigger that would allow them to walk out with 50% or more of the money as well as destroy their partners livelihood if they so desire at a whim.

dogma1138 9y ago

>But that is what marriage is. Everything in a relationship is jointly owned. People who think they can somehow skirt around this don't seem to understand that. Marriage is basically the legal recognition that two people are to be treated as one. They are a team. If people can't handle that, don't get married.... No this isn't what a marriage is, historically this isn't how it worked, and only for a very short time while there still was a very different trade between the partners where divorces became universally acceptable when this was practiced. >It isn't "ones life work". It is "their lives work". Remember, they are a team. They are partners, it doesn't mean that all of their personal achievements are a team effort, in fact the vast majority of their achievements would still be individual. >But thanks to the marriage, what is his is also hers. By nature of them being treated like a single entity. Why shouldn't she get half of their share? That share has material value, therefore both partners are entitled to it. Which is why you get a prenup It is no longer the case when the woman trades 1-2 decades of her life to raise 3 children and needs protection/assurance that she will not be thrown out when her societal value effectively has been reduced to zero with nothing. My biggest disappointment in this whole ordeal is that this isn't a case of a woman getting succeeding an asking for a postnup tho with how divorces are still settled especially in no fault states she would be much more protected against predatory behaviour in that case. What people seem to constantly ignore is that CA is a no fault state, she can just as well decide 5 years down the line that she much rather keep the house and 50% of the assets and start a new life because now she can afford to live on her own without any financial worries. People yapping about that it's not fair to deny someone a full share of a work that they have not participated in, but have no problem with that person basically having a nuclear trigger that would allow them to walk out with 50% or more of the money as well as destroy their partners livelihood if they so desire at a whim.