Should prenuptial agreements be made a requirement prior to marriage?

[Physics-Man]

Yes

No

[WhiteSteve]

I think it’s a smart thing to do. The ugly reality is that marriage is a coin flip on whether it lasts. And you’re in the WORST head space to account for that when you’re in the throes of wedding planning. This shit is gonna last FOREVER…. until it doesn’t. And yes, it might even be you, lovebirds.

Even if you don’t come in with much, I think it just makes sense to settle this issue ahead of time with a clear head, sans the animosity that often comes with divorce. Make this decision when you DON’T hate each other, you’ll thank yourself once you do, haha. It just takes the guesswork out, and then divorce can occur naturally on the grounds of whatever the differences are, and you don’t additionally have to hammer out who gets what when all you want to do is just break free and move on with your life.

[WhiteSteve]

Voted “no”, by the way, I don’t think it needs to necessarily be mandated, I’d just think you were crazy not to.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Yes, and it should be a requirement that both parties cannot take any of their ex spouse's belongings, property, pets, or money upon divorce.

[OlderAndWiser]

1. Why would you want something like that mandated by the government? I don't want the government meddling in my private life.

2. I could draft a premarital agreement with terms so weak that it would be meaningless. Would you want the government to also specify minimum terms for an agreement?

[RavVid]

It is sensible and should be so. However I am dubious on their effectiveness.

In my country the High Court invalidated prenups. A wealthy guy married an Eastern European girl but he wanted too much sex for her liking so the marriage only lasted a month. The prenup didn't allow her much for just one month.

The High Court found it to be unconscionable. All prenups are because there is a basic negotiation position of if you don't sign I won't marry you. In the anglo world any commercial contract could be found to unconscionable if relative negotiation positions are exploited unfairly.

In the case above the girl got half for the month long marriage.

In the US a specific state might support prenups when you are marrying but over time that conservative state might become a more liberal demography and have liberal judges who are happy to strike out unconscionable prenups.

To rely on a prenup, you are betting for 50 years the court will not change in attitude. Prenups only were enacted for us in 2000 and have been struck out after 20 years.

You can see why I have cynicism on their value.

Not saying that will happen for you in the US but you should consider it.

[andreasderjuengere]

In a world that's already ruled by greed - a little extra greed will not do additional harm.

''Marriage'' not longer is a pact of trust - but a mere business transaction?

''Divorce'' ... the same.

Who ever is foolish enough to enter a marriage - deserves what he/she/it/whatever gets :D

[hahahmm]

But we wouldn't even need prenuptial agreements if the government hadn't meddled with traditional marriage and made it so easy for women to get tons of benefits in divorce. Marriage worked fine for thousands of years. There's people who are intentionally trying to destroy western society and making marriage weaker is one of their goals.

[RebelinSteel]

I can see that being a huge bonus for people who are poor, cost of getting married and then cost of a form that gives each other a percentage of the nothing owned.

[Billlewis]

Only if the agreement is advantageous for the woman, in my opinion.

[BCRanger10]

No. In fact, they should be done away with altogether.

[BoopBoopBeep]

They certainly are for me, but I'm not for the government mandating that because they have no place interfering with marriage anyway.

[Anonymous]

It would be more useful than a "license."

[Paul09]

First you don't need to get married, to prove you live each other. Second if you do get married, you definitely should be doing prenuptial

[boggboss]

No I think its fine having them as a choice

[Akam93]

Not unless you think there a gold digger

[strateguy632]

now i feel they shouldn't

[EmmaMary]

No, absolutely not.

[Anonymous]

Sure, I agree on that.