If you ain't no punk holler "we want pre-nup!"

eviltwin

If pre nups had been legal when I got married I would have had one. I brought more to the table than he did, I worked hard for it, I earned it, it's mine. It's nothing to do with love or trust but marriage doesn't always last and you gotta protect yourself.

facing_west

LadyAthame wrote: »

You are being completely unreasonable.
No i didn't you are mis-representing what i said. If you read my other post you will see i think pre-nups should be allowed and you know that. What I object to is the debate about them being used to have a good old misogynistic rant at women.

In fact that approach damages the argument that pre-nups are not cynical.You are the type that gives them a bad name. They are not for men who hate women nor for men who fear women. Nor is marriage and no one is forcing those types of men or anyone to marry anyway.

you drag in inflammatory language like " hating women and mysoginy " yet im the one being unreasonable

i dont hate women , i hate the poisonous idealogy which is feminism , the one which believes women should always be the benifactor in any given circumstance at any given time

The Corinthian

LadyAthame wrote: »

You realize i agree with recognizing pre-nups right? read my first post.

I wasn't really disagreeing with you and was really just underlining that statistics and legal biases aside, the problem is with entitlement rather than gender.

But I do think that the reason that they've become such an issue is that the whole institution of marriage is broken - it's a temporary institution masquerading as a permanent one. Unless this is addressed, and marriage seriously reformed, I suspect that it will decline over the next few decades.

zeffabelli

eviltwin wrote: »

If pre nups had been legal when I got married I would have had one. I brought more to the table than he did, I worked hard for it, I earned it, it's mine. It's nothing to do with love or trust but marriage doesn't always last and you gotta protect yourself.

It can work the other way too....to the non bread winner. As in, an agreement built in, you hit me, you strike me, you rape me, you demean me, you cheat on me.... I want a [insert amount] so I can leave you freely and without obstacle.

I will retain full custody of any children born into this marriage.....

I will secure half of anything you earn for the duration of the marriage.... etc...

LadyAthame

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's a mark of an idiot to say "we may do our best, but this may not work" and not take out some form of insurance or measure to mitigate against the latter possibility.

I agree THAT is a perfectly rational explanation for having one. 'All wimmin is bitches bro' is not.

And if you do suspect that of your future spouse not even the hardest most recognized pre nup in the world would make getting married a good idea. Not even if you were certain she would walk away with nothing. It would be a terrible marriage.
Don't think knowing they would walk with nothing would protect you from being damaged.

Get one they are a good idea, for the right reasons and with the right attitude. Or don't get married.

The Corinthian

zeffabelli wrote: »

It can work the other way too....to the non bread winner. As in, an agreement built in, you hit me, you strike me, you rape me, you demean me, you cheat on me.... I want a [insert amount] so I can leave you freely and without obstacle.

I think you need to read up on contract law - in particular with regard to unenforceable agreements.

LadyAthame

zeffabelli wrote: »

It can work the other way too....to the non bread winner. As in, an agreement built in, you hit me, you strike me, you rape me, you demean me, you cheat on me.... I want a [insert amount] so I can leave you freely and without obstacle.

I will retain full custody of any children born into this marriage.....

I will secure half of anything you earn for the duration of the marriage.... etc...
...

Exactly.

Carlos Orange

The Corinthian wrote: »

it's a temporary institution masquerading as a permanent one

It seems more like the reverse. Marriages don't last forever any more but strangely the financial obligations they create do.

eviltwin

zeffabelli wrote: »

It can work the other way too....to the non bread winner. As in, an agreement built in, you hit me, you strike me, you rape me, you demean me, you cheat on me.... I want a [insert amount] so I can leave you freely and without obstacle.

I will retain full custody of any children born into this marriage.....

I will secure half of anything you earn for the duration of the marriage.... etc...

That I agree with too. My husband and myself believe in the event of our marriage ending due to unreasonable behaviour the person in the wrong should be the one to leave but it's harder to stick to that where emotions are concerned.

zeffabelli

eviltwin wrote: »

That I agree with too. My husband and myself believe in the event of our marriage ending due to unreasonable behaviour the person in the wrong should be the one to leave but it's harder to stick to that where emotions are concerned.

Lol especially when 95% of the time no one thinks they are wrong...everyone has their reasons....

The Corinthian

LadyAthame wrote: »

I agree THAT is a perfectly rational explanation for having one. 'All wimmin is bitches bro' is not.

If fairness, I don't think he was attacking women (although I could well be wrong), but feminism. And last time I checked feminist is not a synonym of woman, any more than Israeli is of Jew.

LadyAthame

The Corinthian wrote: »

If fairness, I don't think he was attacking women (although I could well be wrong), but feminism. And last time I checked feminist is not a synonym of woman, any more than Israeli is of Jew.

He was.

The Corinthian

LadyAthame wrote: »

He was.

OK. I'll take your word for it, largely because I'm far to lazy to go over his posts

LadyAthame

The Corinthian wrote: »

OK. I'll take your word for it, largely because I'm far to lazy to go over his posts

Don't worry I am listening to my neighbour play Spanish guitar I am in the zone too!;)

conorhal

facing_west wrote: »

its not a level pitch of suspicion , male concern is well grounded as the institutions of the state are firmly biased against men when it comes to sharing out assets , assets the man often entirely owned prior to marriage

women are actively encouraged by society and the state to grab all they can in the event of a break up

Perhaps there needs to be some middle ground in this debate.If a marriage ends after 5 years it seems like neiteher party has invested much in each other or contributed much to their joint assests, but after 10 or 20 years together that's a different story. I think a pre-nump should have an expiry date.

zeffabelli

conorhal wrote: »

Perhaps there needs to be some middle ground in this debate.If a marriage ends after 5 years it seems like neiteher party has invested much in each other or contributed much to their joint assests, but after 10 or 20 years together that's a different story. I think a pre-nump should have an expiry date.

Duration is always a factor. IF you are married for two years, you don't have much of a case.

Lt J.R. Bell

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well anyone would be stupid to rush into marriage then surely without really getting to know the person first, and if you're bringing material assets into the marriage, then you're making certain vows, and those vows have to mean something. Pre-nup agreements totally devalue the meaning of these vows, leading to a situation like in the States where people simply don't take their marriages seriously because they know they always have an easy get-out clause if they have a pre-nup.





This I actually agree with, four years is ridiculous to be waiting for a decree of divorce.

Let's face it, plenty of people were together 4-10 years before marriage and still divorce

Marriage is, legally, a contract. So, like all contracts one has clauses to deal with potential problems in the future and exclusion clauses to militate losseS.

Look at Paul Mccarthy. Loads of reasons why he shouldn't have remarried. Sure, it might have been genuine but...

Lt J.R. Bell

zeffabelli wrote: »

Duration is always a factor. IF you are married for two years, you don't have much of a case.

Well, depends on whether they Co habitated for years prior to it. Children also complicate things.you still have to Put a roof over their heads, and,effectively the baby mamma

Have to say I have no idea about pre nup - how to go about it - what is binding and what is not - or what the point of it is. I had not realised however that this means I like punk music.

To be honest I have no idea what would happen if my relationship broke down. Not the first notion. I have been operating under the idea it will last the distance. To be honest my life is so invested in the relationship at this point if it ended I would likely end my own life and start again - by simply liquidising all assets in my name - moving into a digs - and going back to college to pursue a career entirely different to the one I am in now. A total new start and self reinvention The current me would simply die with the relationship.

Thankfully no sign of any of that happening.

seamus

While I'm of the opinion that someone who signs a pre-nup probably shouldn't be getting married at all, at the end of the day the arrangements for someone else's marriage don't affect me, so if people want this, then let at them.

The only thing I would like to see is that any clause in a pre-nup in relation to children is voided. It should not be possible to sign away anything in this regard.

Of course, we shouldn't even be looking at legalising pre-nups at all until we put down some laws which enforce equality in any separation/divorce process (include non-married partnerships) and give men equal rights to their children.
But you don't get to pick and choose what the politicians work on and the farmers are terrible possessive about their land. Probably moreso than about their children.

Pumpkinseeds

Do the Irish courts even recognise Pre-nups? I seem to remember hearing something years ago when Pre-nups were really popular, that they aren't worth the paper they're written on. I could be very wrong, so don't hold me to it.

Lt J.R. Bell

Deleted User wrote: »

Have to say I have no idea about pre nup - how to go about it - what is binding and what is not - or what the point of it is. I had not realised however that this means I like punk music.

To be honest I have no idea what would happen if my relationship broke down. Not the first notion. I have been operating under the idea it will last the distance. To be honest my life is so invested in the relationship at this point if it ended I would likely end my own life and start again - by simply liquidising all assets in my name - moving into a digs - and going back to college to pursue a career entirely different to the one I am in now. A total new start and self reinvention The current me would simply die with the relationship.

Thankfully no sign of any of that happening.

I think it's lyrics from Kanye West not punk music

ohnonotgmail

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Do the Irish courts even recognise Pre-nups? I seem to remember hearing something years ago when Pre-nups were really popular, that they aren't worth the paper they're written on. I could be very wrong, so don't hold me to it.

the whole point of the thread is that some people want the courts to recognise them.

Lt J.R. Bell

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Do the Irish courts even recognise Pre-nups? I seem to remember hearing something years ago when Pre-nups were really popular, that they aren't worth the paper they're written on. I could be very wrong, so don't hold me to it.

Not enforceable

Constitution would have to be amended. Only area of law where the Constitution more or less spells out grounds for divorce. Ie divorce subject to proper provisions being proved

It was historically a big reason divorce had a tough referendum history. Farmers had a genuine fear

seamus

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Do the Irish courts even recognise Pre-nups? I seem to remember hearing something years ago when Pre-nups were really popular, that they aren't worth the paper they're written on. I could be very wrong, so don't hold me to it.

No, they're not recognised here. And I actually think the odds of legalising them are small.

Our constitution is annoyingly specific about marriage. And since "the State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage", I can see any attempt to allow for pre-nuptial agreements being quickly challenged as unconstitutional, and called an "attack" on marriage.

In reality we need to remove the above article from the constitution, but that would be an uphill struggle.

zeffabelli

seamus wrote: »

While I'm of the opinion that someone who signs a pre-nup probably shouldn't be getting married at all, at the end of the day the arrangements for someone else's marriage don't affect me, so if people want this, then let at them.

The only thing I would like to see is that any clause in a pre-nup in relation to children is voided. It should not be possible to sign away anything in this regard.

Of course, we shouldn't even be looking at legalising pre-nups at all until we put down some laws which enforce equality in any separation/divorce process (include non-married partnerships) and give men equal rights to their children.
But you don't get to pick and choose what the politicians work on and the farmers are terrible possessive about their land. Probably moreso than about their children.

Problem with equal rights is they are impractical. Let's say you have default 50/50, what if neither party wants 50/50, what if both parties only want to see the child every other weekend, what happens to the child the rest of the time?

The mothers now have enforced responsibility, the fathers do not have enforced responsibility. They want to be able to take responsibilty when and if they feel like it, even if its 5 days a year, and call it equal rights.

Right now, rights are just rights, not responsibility, so until we have some kind of enforced responsibility, I'm sick to the teeth of these rights town criers, now grandparents and ex boy friends can get their rights but not pay a cent in child support. This is where we are now with rights. It's a joke.

A mother may not want to have the responsibility 365 days a year, she may only want to have it ...I dunno.... 280 days a year but she still has to have it.

I can't see how "equality" or notions of it can be practically applied without responsibility also.

ohnonotgmail

seamus wrote: »

No, they're not recognised here. And I actually think the odds of legalising them are small.

Our constitution is annoyingly specific about marriage. And since "the State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage", I can see any attempt to allow for pre-nuptial agreements being quickly challenged as unconstitutional, and called an "attack" on marriage.

In reality we need to remove the above article from the constitution, but that would be an uphill struggle.

but surely divorce is also an "attack on marriage" and they seem to have legislated for that.

facing_west

zeffabelli wrote: »

Lol especially when 95% of the time no one thinks they are wrong...everyone has their reasons....

who do you think the courts usually decide is in the wrong or at least shoulders the financial responsibilities of the other ?

zeffabelli

facing_west wrote: »

who do you think the courts usually decide is in the wrong or at least shoulders the financial responsibilities of the other ?

I have no idea, I know plenty of single mothers getting 10-20 a week of court ordered maintenance.

Or nothing.

Should I base my generalised assumptions on that?

facing_west

zeffabelli wrote: »

I have no idea, I know plenty of single mothers getting 10-20 a week of court ordered maintenance.

Or nothing.

Should I base my generalised assumptions on that?

are you talking about single mothers or seperated - divorced mothers ?

seamus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

but surely divorce is also an "attack on marriage" and they seem to have legislated for that.

That's exactly why we had to have a referendum on it.

OK, so divorce was in fact constitutionally barred, but rather than just removing the constitutional ban, it had to be explicitly permitted in the constitution. This pre-empted any challenge to divorce legislation on the basis of the state's requirement to "protect" marriage.

seamus

zeffabelli wrote: »

The mothers now have enforced responsibility, the fathers do not have enforced responsibility. They want to be able to take responsibilty when and if they feel like it, even if its 5 days a year, and call it equal rights.

Well that's why I say equality.

Equal in all areas including access to children and obligations towards.

Pumpkinseeds

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the whole point of the thread is that some people want the courts to recognise them.

And good morning to you too.

bjork

So as well as divorcing him, it's necessary to ruin his business
How's he going to earn the maintenance he needs to pay?


Also should the other partner be sacked from their job if they divorce?

zeffabelli

facing_west wrote: »

are you talking about single mothers or seperated - divorced mothers ?

I dont know any divorced mothers. I know married and single ones, so yeah single.

Are you suggesting they are discriminated against too by the courts?

Carlos Orange

zeffabelli wrote: »

I dont know any divorced mothers. I know married and single ones, so yeah single.

Are you suggesting they are discriminated against too by the courts?

Presumably single mums don't get maintenance for themselves the way divorced mothers can.

ohnonotgmail

seamus wrote: »

That's exactly why we had to have a referendum on it.

OK, so divorce was in fact constitutionally barred, but rather than just removing the constitutional ban, it had to be explicitly permitted in the constitution. This pre-empted any challenge to divorce legislation on the basis of the state's requirement to "protect" marriage.

but how does that lead to pre-nups being an attack on marriage?

ash23

I was going out with a farmer and we had a hypothetical discussion about this very thing. I told him I have no interest in his farm and should we marry and divorce, I wouldn't look for half the farm but the house would either have to be sold or he would have to buy me out. It was built beside the farm so no sense in me staying in it but I wasn't walking away.
I also said though that he couldn't expect me to be involved in the farm either.

We lived together for a while and he was always asking me to do the books for the farm and I was always refusing. I didn't want the farm to become my job and felt it was easier to keep it all separate. But he wanted me to help with the farm but still have no claim to it.

Now I'm with someone else and in this instance, I've more to lose than he does. I've already told him that if we marry, I'll be willing everything I have to my child until she's an adult in which case it'll be split between them......he also has a child and has said the same.

It's messy really and though we talk about getting married, we might be better off as we are, especially when we're not planning a family.

I don't blame farmers for wanting to protect the farm which has probably been in their family for generations. But I also can't completely dismiss the work that the other party has most likely contributed over the years too.
It's a tough one and add to it that most of the time the family home is on the farm and it complicates things even more.

zeffabelli

ash23 wrote: »

I was going out with a farmer and we had a hypothetical discussion about this very thing. I told him I have no interest in his farm and should we marry and divorce, I wouldn't look for half the farm but the house would either have to be sold or he would have to buy me out. It was built beside the farm so no sense in me staying in it but I wasn't walking away.
I also said though that he couldn't expect me to be involved in the farm either.

We lived together for a while and he was always asking me to do the books for the farm and I was always refusing. I didn't want the farm to become my job and felt it was easier to keep it all separate. But he wanted me to help with the farm but still have no claim to it.

Now I'm with someone else and in this instance, I've more to lose than he does. I've already told him that if we marry, I'll be willing everything I have to my child until she's an adult in which case it'll be split between them......he also has a child and has said the same.

It's messy really and though we talk about getting married, we might be better off as we are, especially when we're not planning a family.

I don't blame farmers for wanting to protect the farm which has probably been in their family for generations. But I also can't completely dismiss the work that the other party has most likely contributed over the years too.
It's a tough one and add to it that most of the time the family home is on the farm and it complicates things even more.

This is really true. It's easy to forget how much input the farmer's wife has into running a farm.

Lt J.R. Bell

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

but surely divorce is also an "attack on marriage" and they seem to have legislated for that.

The Constitution was amended to allow divorce.

Divorce in this country is very restrictive on paper. 4 years, specific grounds (easy to get over, practically as there is a no fault system,it's irrelevant if Billy doesn't consent to divorce so long as there are grounds of eg irreconcilable differences) and that "proper provisions" are in place eg children are provided for. Thus, those restrictive laws are in place to protect the Institution of marriage

As you know, divorce barely got a majority. However, I think people would be more accepting of a lower time limit for separation. Speaking if separation, that was aacknowled since 1989

Other than that, marriage protection has been referred to in tax laws. But, hey, even in immigration ie deportation of a family member , none of these laws are absolute

edword

edword wrote: »

marriages with pre nup agreements signed by both parties are statistically more likely to end in divorce, so i think farmers are being a bit short sighted here because by ensisting on pre nups you are increasing the likelihood or odds that their wife will eventually divorce them. have to wonder what theyre hiding really, but they havent earned a reputation for being greedy for nothing

Basic statistical rule is that correlation is not causation.

NegativeCreep

It's something that you need to have cause when she leave yo ass she gon' leave with half.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

No, they're not recognised here. And I actually think the odds of legalising them are small.

Our constitution is annoyingly specific about marriage. And since "the State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage", I can see any attempt to allow for pre-nuptial agreements being quickly challenged as unconstitutional, and called an "attack" on marriage.

In reality we need to remove the above article from the constitution, but that would be an uphill struggle.

Its not an attack on marriage and it would be a very poor court that would come up with that interpretation. Its merely setting out an agreed position of both parties, in the spirit of being prudent and realistic should difficulties inevitably arise in the future. The agreement would only come into effect if a court accepted that the marriage was over and therefore the protection of marriage in the constitution would no longer apply.

Ideally, the issues that might invalidate one would be similar to the issues that might invalidate a will.

Lt J.R. Bell

NegativeCreep wrote: »

It's something that you need to have cause when she leave yo ass she gon' leave with half.

Word!

strobe

You don't have to think the person you are marrying is a good digger, or just after your money, or untrustworthy, or a greedy or selfish person to want a pre-nup.

Relationships tend not to end amicably as a rule. Marriages less so. There can often be a lot of hurt, and bitterness, and resentment and feelings of that nature. And when people, even good people, are feeling hurt, and bitter and resentful, they can act in ways, despite their better nature, that are not necessarily good and fair. People are flawed creatures at times.

Pre-nups would just provide a level of protection, against this unfortunate possible situation. Protection for both parties, from both being a victim of an otherwise good person acting in a not very good manor, and from being a good person being tempted to act in a not very good manor.

efb

The Corinthian wrote: »

Another one is it has to be between a man and a woman. I take it that you consider gay marriage a bad idea too?

If you cohabit with someone for five years (two if there's a child in the mix), you already will have the financial obligations foisted on you, automatically. If unmarried, you are in a severe disadvantage in terms of rights to your child (naturally only if you're a man) or taxation.

So there is more than a little coercion taking place where it comes to marriage, and that is before one considers the social coercion that's long been present.

It wasnt always it was between a man and his father in law

conorhal

NegativeCreep wrote: »

It's something that you need to have cause when she leave yo ass she gon' leave with half.

That's just a half-assed argument.......

The Corinthian

ash23 wrote: »

I don't blame farmers for wanting to protect the farm which has probably been in their family for generations. But I also can't completely dismiss the work that the other party has most likely contributed over the years too.

Neither can you dismiss that she's been getting rent free accommodation on said farm either. Or that her contributions are frankly worth half of the farm, plus continued maintenance.

Thing is, as you said yourself, it's a complicated matter. The main problem, as I see it, is that these 'entitlements' are out of sync with marriage - they are based upon what marriage used to be, not what it is now. With the society they were created for, not today's society. The whole institution, especially the question of 'entitlement' needs to be looked at and reformed, otherwise slowly or surely, the institution will eventually die.

efb wrote: »

It wasnt always it was between a man and his father in law

So you do think gay marriage is a bad idea then.

Sleepy

seamus wrote: »

In reality we need to remove the above article from the constitution, but that would be an uphill struggle.

In reality we'd be best served throwing out Bunreacht na hEireann almost in it's entirety and starting afresh imo.

ghogie91

The farmers want a sturdy woman to pick shtone but dont want to give her a euro for her effort!