Law in Contemporary Society
-- NicoleMedham - 04 Apr 2008

Prenuptial Agreements: ‘Til Death Do Us Part...Yea Right!

“If you ain’t no punk holla we want prenup. WE WANT PRENUP!, Yeah It's something that you need to have, ‘Cause when she leave yo ass she gone leave with half” ~Kanye West, “Gold Digger”

Introduction

I am an oddity amongst many of my female friends. I have always stated that I would not get married without a pre-nuptial agreement and upon hearing this, my female friends either look at me with mild amusement or sadness because I feel the need to have this piece of paper mar the institution of marriage. I don't believe that this is a function of my being pessimistic or cynical. I contend that pre-nuptial agreements are almost a necessity in the age of the divorce rate being over 50% and that these agreements do not display selfishness or the belief that the marriage is over before it starts.

The Celebrity Pre-nup

When Britney Spears married childhood friend Jason Alexander without the knowledge of her family and handlers, there was a mad rush to get the marriage annulled. Indeed, the marriage is one of the shortest celebrity marriages on record, having lasted only 55 hours. The primary reason behind the quickness of legal action to get the impromptu marriage annulled was the lack of a pre-nuptial agreement. As the former pop star’s handlers made clear, Britney stood to lose half of her net worth if the marriage, left in tack without an agreement, failed. When people think of pre-nuptial agreements, they often think of celebrities. As soon as a celebrity announces their impending divorce from their spouse, celebrity gossip pundits immediately start speculating about the pre-nuptial agreement. Did both parties sign an agreement? Does so and so get money based on the years of marriage? Who gets the property in the Hamptons? However, having this agreement does not mean that one needs a multitude of properties or stocks or have money to rival the per movie rate of Tom and Denzel. The everyday person can and should make use of these agreements because everyone has their own personal assets and stakes in this union.

Planning for Failure?

The idea that a pre-nuptial agreement is conceding that the marriage will eventually fail is prevalent amongst those that are against them. However, I feel that the idea that having an agreement in place in case the parties later divorce is not planning for failure as much as it is just an example of smart planning. Within Judaism, a type of pre-nup called ketubah has been a mainstay of marriage. The ketubah outlines the husband’s requirement to clothe, house, and support their spouse in case of divorce of death. Yet, the idea that this agreement means that one wants their marriage to fail is nowhere to be found within that religion. Like it or not, people change, and sometimes, not for the better. With the divorce rate being as high as it is, the odds are good that you will get a divorce. However, getting this agreement does not mean that you want your marriage to fail, it means that you understand that nothing is certain and that anything could happen.

A Tool to Screw over the “Poorer” Party

Another argument against the usage of a pre-nup is the implication that the proponent of the agreement is merely selfish and doesn’t embody the belief that a marriage is about combining assets as an extension of combining lives. Why must someone be selfish just because they wish to protect themselves? This is an age where many are choosing to get married later in life after they have established themselves professionally. It only makes sense that the person would at least think about the benefits of this agreement to protect what they have worked hard for. To be sure, I don’t advocate being unfair to the person you profess to love. A person shouldn’t be able to keep everything from their homemaker spouse. However, someone with suspect tendencies shouldn’t be able to automatically walk away with half of the earnings that they had played a minimal role in establishing. While it is true that these agreements are not always followed to the letter, at least there is some type of rubric or thought process on paper.

Conclusion

There is no doubt that the institution of marriage is an important one and should not be entered into lightly. Sure, the idea that marriage is ‘til death is the ideal. However, one would be have to be a bit naïve to think that their marriage will not fail, thus making them a causality of the high divorce rate. One does a disservice by not having a plan B for all situations. While marriage is (to some) ultimate expression of love and commitment, it is still a contractual agreement that some chose to breach. I don’t think that anyone would take on a partner in a new joint business venture without a contract in the event that the business folds or someone wants to walk away. For me, I liken a pre-nuptial agreement to insurance: I wouldn’t drive a car without auto-insurance, own a home without homeowners insurance, and I definitely won’t be getting married without a pre-nuptial agreement. Sure, one could say that a car and a home are merely material possessions and cannot be compared to a marriage. However, in the same way that one does not expect to have a car accident or a home fire is the same way that one may not expect their perfect fairytale marriage to fall apart. Better to be safe than 'sorry'.

Navigation

Webs Webs

r1 - 04 Apr 2008 - 19:23:16 - NicoleMedham
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
Syndicate this site RSSATOM