3 ms·

Prenups Aren’t Just for Rich People Anymore: Sparing Your Spouse from Your Debts

18 points by fortran77 3y ago

hunglee2 3y ago
pre-nups obviously should be mandatary - it would remove any stigma from the process and ensure a fair deal for all. Think of how much $$$ would be saved that would otherwise go to divorce lawyers, not to mention reducing the level of acrimony which always escalates when one party feels the other is trying to gain advantage
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  Prenuptial agreements are forbidden by churches which understand marriage to be permanent. Prenuptial agreements more or less anticipate the ending of the relationship and plan as if that is the end goal. This is incompatible with the indissolubility of marriage. I am curious though, if prenups are "mandatory", then what is the minimum mandatory content of a mandatory prenup? Can I agree with my fiancée to sign a null prenup that has no effect, or one whose effect exactly matches the outcomes without a prenup?
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    Religions are unrealistic. 40-50% of first marriages end in divorce. 60-67% of second marriages end in divorce. Religions attempt coercion to keep unhappy people together for ideological purposes. Prenups require care when crafting to ensure they’re not voided later by state law or a judge. Seek an attorney for your specific case if one is needed. If they were mandated, I assume that it would take place in a manner where statue governed primarily (assets obtained before marriage remain with their owners, marital assets split in half or something like that), versus everyone having a unique prenup. Importantly, in this case, they are being used to shield a partner from medical debt in community property states. It’s likely easier to just not make that a thing?
  - hunglee2 3y ago
    marriages existed before the Church hijacked them - it would be great thing if we took back marriage from both Church and State!
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
      Yeah!! You and me, bud! Let's run away, elope, and buy an island where no gubmint can touch us! Only we can touch each other all we want, hunglee2!! We'll call our island "Weinstein II"
  - prepend 3y ago
    > Prenuptial agreements more or less anticipate the ending of the relationship and plan as if that is the end goal. Contingency planning isn’t making that the end goal. Does homeowners insurance plan as if burning down your house is the end goal? Does a partnership agreement for an LLP plan as if dissolving the partnership is the end goal? I think prenups and permanent marriage are not incompatible. And having a good prenup night actually make marriages last longer.
    - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
      > I think prenups and permanent marriage are not incompatible. > Religions attempt coercion Well, the people who regulate marriage disagree. Religions don't "coerce" people to do things through legitimate authority. Perhaps stop looking at it from the end of people wanting to rip apart a union. Perhaps look at it from the point of view where it is important to teach people how to love one another, how to submit to the natural order of things, how to exercise their complementarity for the good of the whole family, how to suffer, if need be: you know, in sickness and in health. Couples are welcome to seek counseling and retreats if they are "unhappy", I mean "unhappy" seems like the first stage of a relationship that's breaking down, but everyone is unhappy once in a while; that's no reason for divorce. Churches provide a lot of support to help couples and families stay together. I mean that's practically one of the foremost missions of the Church, is to ensure that families are strengthened and encouraged, and that we persevere in love, no matter what.
      - prepend 3y ago
        > I mean that's practically one of the foremost missions of the Church, is to ensure that families are strengthened and encouraged, and that we persevere in love, no matter what. I think this is a good ideal. But treating it as an absolute with “no matter what” seems foolish and discounts the entire philosophy as counter productive. To show this with an extreme. Should spouses who attempt murder and perform numerous rapes and beatings expect their spouse to “persevere?” How about church leaders who molest children entrusted to them? Should spouses stay married to them? I think there are more marriages ended for reconcilable reasons and could have been saved. But admitting they marriages must be kept together makes it harder to keep them. Again, buying life insurance doesn’t mean you want to die. It means you want your kids taken care off if your life ends unexpectedly.
  - cafard 3y ago
    A quick search for "prenuptial" on the USCCB website pulls up nothing in particular, not does one on the local archdiocesan site.
    - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
      They're not universally forbidden or prohibited, sorry I misspoke. They are often discouraged by Catholic pastors who are preparing couples for marriage. There are prenups which are acceptable even in these cases, but in fact, some priests will balk and simply put a blanket prohibition, because they are not lawyers and probably don't have the qualifications or budget to evaluate the ramifications of each prenup in these cases. Honestly, the Church just wants the couple to understand that marriage is defined as the permanent, loving, fruitful union of one man and one women, and then all their planning and actions stem from that definition. There are, in fact, several ways in which a marriage can be dissolved, even a Church marriage. But the pastors don't want couples to plan for that, or aim for that, or expect that that will happen to them. Divorce is even seen as necessary in certain cases: yeah, if there is active domestic abuse, or if the spouse is doing crimes, or gross financial mismanagement that endangers lives, then divorce can be recommended, because it is a legal means of separating them, and extracting innocent parties from the harmful environment, and that is exactly what we mean by "persevering in love", because, you know, even women and children are loved and protected so much that their dignity and safety must be preserved. Such a divorce, in itself, won't dissolve a Christian marriage, but it's never killed anyone to live the celibate life, and essentially remain faithful, even if the partner couldn't.
mindslight 3y ago
I've got to wonder, what is the point besides going along with the momentum of tradition? It seems that trying to craft a private legal agreement to undo what the state thinks a marriage should mean would be fraught with pitfalls - like the example in the article of Nevada where debt still accrues to both people. In general it seems like one might be better off remaining two completely distinct legal entities. It seems like you could still have the ceremony without getting the state involved, while you also do documents that additively define the relationship like power of attorney, healthcare proxy, trusts, etc.
- prepend 3y ago
  For me it’s one of those situations where you are right about how society should operate. But practically there are many customs around marriage that are difficult or impossible to recreate. For example, hospitals allow spouses in patients rooms and to make medical decisions. Even if you have medical power of attorney, it doesn’t change hospital policies to allow you to hold your dying spouse’s hand even when visitor hours are over. Hospitals should have better procedures to allow a single person specified beforehand. But not all do. And I never know where I or my spouse will get sick. Being married helps to “fix” what’s not possible in many countries, states, and places. Similarly with raising kids. There are countless customs where being a spouse makes an interaction at school or daycare or healthcare seamless, but being something else turns into really unpleasant situations. Of course it shouldn’t be and those institutions should change. I’ve found them getting better in the past 30 years, but still run into issues. I grew up reading Heinlein and thought the social contracts were cool and hope that the future makes this better. But right now, the best way to have a joint life with someone is to get married. Not to mention that there are massive tax benefits for raising children with the US tax brackets for married on one income. To be efficient with taxes, people with equal incomes should marry while one pauses their career to have tax benefits of married with one income. Then once they are ready for daycare or school, get divorced as there are substantial penalties for two equal earners being married.
  - c22 3y ago
    I am not married to my partner. Nevertheless, in hospitals or similar situations people just assume we're married. Sometimes someone asks "is that your wife" and I just say "yes," then they let me see her. No one has ever asked to view a marriage certificate.

18 points by fortran77 3y ago

pre-nups obviously should be mandatary - it would remove any stigma from the process and ensure a fair deal for all. Think of how much $$$ would be saved that would otherwise go to divorce lawyers, not to mention reducing the level of acrimony which always escalates when one party feels the other is trying to gain advantage

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
Prenuptial agreements are forbidden by churches which understand marriage to be permanent. Prenuptial agreements more or less anticipate the ending of the relationship and plan as if that is the end goal. This is incompatible with the indissolubility of marriage. I am curious though, if prenups are "mandatory", then what is the minimum mandatory content of a mandatory prenup? Can I agree with my fiancée to sign a null prenup that has no effect, or one whose effect exactly matches the outcomes without a prenup?
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  Religions are unrealistic. 40-50% of first marriages end in divorce. 60-67% of second marriages end in divorce. Religions attempt coercion to keep unhappy people together for ideological purposes. Prenups require care when crafting to ensure they’re not voided later by state law or a judge. Seek an attorney for your specific case if one is needed. If they were mandated, I assume that it would take place in a manner where statue governed primarily (assets obtained before marriage remain with their owners, marital assets split in half or something like that), versus everyone having a unique prenup. Importantly, in this case, they are being used to shield a partner from medical debt in community property states. It’s likely easier to just not make that a thing?
- hunglee2 3y ago
  marriages existed before the Church hijacked them - it would be great thing if we took back marriage from both Church and State!
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
    Yeah!! You and me, bud! Let's run away, elope, and buy an island where no gubmint can touch us! Only we can touch each other all we want, hunglee2!! We'll call our island "Weinstein II"
- prepend 3y ago
  > Prenuptial agreements more or less anticipate the ending of the relationship and plan as if that is the end goal. Contingency planning isn’t making that the end goal. Does homeowners insurance plan as if burning down your house is the end goal? Does a partnership agreement for an LLP plan as if dissolving the partnership is the end goal? I think prenups and permanent marriage are not incompatible. And having a good prenup night actually make marriages last longer.
  - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
    > I think prenups and permanent marriage are not incompatible. > Religions attempt coercion Well, the people who regulate marriage disagree. Religions don't "coerce" people to do things through legitimate authority. Perhaps stop looking at it from the end of people wanting to rip apart a union. Perhaps look at it from the point of view where it is important to teach people how to love one another, how to submit to the natural order of things, how to exercise their complementarity for the good of the whole family, how to suffer, if need be: you know, in sickness and in health. Couples are welcome to seek counseling and retreats if they are "unhappy", I mean "unhappy" seems like the first stage of a relationship that's breaking down, but everyone is unhappy once in a while; that's no reason for divorce. Churches provide a lot of support to help couples and families stay together. I mean that's practically one of the foremost missions of the Church, is to ensure that families are strengthened and encouraged, and that we persevere in love, no matter what.
    - prepend 3y ago
      > I mean that's practically one of the foremost missions of the Church, is to ensure that families are strengthened and encouraged, and that we persevere in love, no matter what. I think this is a good ideal. But treating it as an absolute with “no matter what” seems foolish and discounts the entire philosophy as counter productive. To show this with an extreme. Should spouses who attempt murder and perform numerous rapes and beatings expect their spouse to “persevere?” How about church leaders who molest children entrusted to them? Should spouses stay married to them? I think there are more marriages ended for reconcilable reasons and could have been saved. But admitting they marriages must be kept together makes it harder to keep them. Again, buying life insurance doesn’t mean you want to die. It means you want your kids taken care off if your life ends unexpectedly.
- cafard 3y ago
  A quick search for "prenuptial" on the USCCB website pulls up nothing in particular, not does one on the local archdiocesan site.
  - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
    They're not universally forbidden or prohibited, sorry I misspoke. They are often discouraged by Catholic pastors who are preparing couples for marriage. There are prenups which are acceptable even in these cases, but in fact, some priests will balk and simply put a blanket prohibition, because they are not lawyers and probably don't have the qualifications or budget to evaluate the ramifications of each prenup in these cases. Honestly, the Church just wants the couple to understand that marriage is defined as the permanent, loving, fruitful union of one man and one women, and then all their planning and actions stem from that definition. There are, in fact, several ways in which a marriage can be dissolved, even a Church marriage. But the pastors don't want couples to plan for that, or aim for that, or expect that that will happen to them. Divorce is even seen as necessary in certain cases: yeah, if there is active domestic abuse, or if the spouse is doing crimes, or gross financial mismanagement that endangers lives, then divorce can be recommended, because it is a legal means of separating them, and extracting innocent parties from the harmful environment, and that is exactly what we mean by "persevering in love", because, you know, even women and children are loved and protected so much that their dignity and safety must be preserved. Such a divorce, in itself, won't dissolve a Christian marriage, but it's never killed anyone to live the celibate life, and essentially remain faithful, even if the partner couldn't.

mindslight 3y ago

I've got to wonder, what is the point besides going along with the momentum of tradition? It seems that trying to craft a private legal agreement to undo what the state thinks a marriage should mean would be fraught with pitfalls - like the example in the article of Nevada where debt still accrues to both people. In general it seems like one might be better off remaining two completely distinct legal entities. It seems like you could still have the ceremony without getting the state involved, while you also do documents that additively define the relationship like power of attorney, healthcare proxy, trusts, etc.

prepend 3y ago
For me it’s one of those situations where you are right about how society should operate. But practically there are many customs around marriage that are difficult or impossible to recreate. For example, hospitals allow spouses in patients rooms and to make medical decisions. Even if you have medical power of attorney, it doesn’t change hospital policies to allow you to hold your dying spouse’s hand even when visitor hours are over. Hospitals should have better procedures to allow a single person specified beforehand. But not all do. And I never know where I or my spouse will get sick. Being married helps to “fix” what’s not possible in many countries, states, and places. Similarly with raising kids. There are countless customs where being a spouse makes an interaction at school or daycare or healthcare seamless, but being something else turns into really unpleasant situations. Of course it shouldn’t be and those institutions should change. I’ve found them getting better in the past 30 years, but still run into issues. I grew up reading Heinlein and thought the social contracts were cool and hope that the future makes this better. But right now, the best way to have a joint life with someone is to get married. Not to mention that there are massive tax benefits for raising children with the US tax brackets for married on one income. To be efficient with taxes, people with equal incomes should marry while one pauses their career to have tax benefits of married with one income. Then once they are ready for daycare or school, get divorced as there are substantial penalties for two equal earners being married.
- c22 3y ago
  I am not married to my partner. Nevertheless, in hospitals or similar situations people just assume we're married. Sometimes someone asks "is that your wife" and I just say "yes," then they let me see her. No one has ever asked to view a marriage certificate.