Re: Pre-nuptial intentions on the path to hell...
First, Jay, I'd like to thank you for ruining my marriage. (Just kidding.)
A little perspective-- I've known my wife for over a quarter century, we've been married almost 19 years (of which we've actually lived together for 16), and we have a 12-year-old. This is our first and, I've been told, only marriage. We came from similar backgrounds, met at college, and both started with steady Navy jobs & similar (minimal) savings. It's a partnership in harness, not a lead-follow relationship.
So in an atmosphere of complete respect & trust I brought up this subject during the morning honey-dos. "Hey, honey, this guy on the ER board doesn't want to get married without a pre-nup." Her answer: "I'm in favor of that." My response: "Hunh?!?"
During the ensuing two-hour discussion scattered over a six-hour day before school let out (you married veterans understand what I'm talking about) we eventually we agreed that pre-nups are absolutely essential for pre-existing kids or for taking care of family that could suffer divorce "collateral damage". We also agree that a pre-nup excuses full commitment & compromise (as well as sucking the romance out of a marriage) while she thinks it's a valuable springboard for a financial discussion.
Second, thanks for those great links. I especially appreciated this Psych Today summary:
"Dubin: Romantic love is one thing; marriage is another. It is a spiritual and emotional bond, for sure. But it is also an economic partnership. Whether you have a prenuptial agreement or not, once you get married, you've agreed to the laws. If you think your marriage does not have economic consequences, then you're not living in the real world.
Margulies: Romantic love suggests loving with abandon, risking all and a complete sharing of two lives. It does not contemplate holding back, limiting commitment, separating interests and refusing to risk or share. Yet these are precisely the objectives of the prenuptial agreement."
For those slinging the ">50% of all marriages" statistic, according to the National Center for Health Statistics, 43% of first marriages will end in divorce or separation within 15 years in the United States.
And from the survey:
"No regrets - divorced Americans make do without a prenuptial agreement. A large majority (71%) says they have no regrets, and only two percent say they did have a prenuptial agreement."
"[Of those with regrets] Childless divorcees regret not having a prenuptial agreement - for a variety of reasons. Divorcees without children regret not having a prenuptial agreement significantly more than those with children because their ex-spouse received too many of their assets (19% vs. 7%), because a prenuptial agreement would have made the divorce easier and less expensive (9% vs. 3%), because their kids would have benefited from such a “liquidated damages” agreement (7% vs. 1%), and because they themselves did not get enough of their ex-spouse’s assets (7% vs. 1%). Conversely, divorcees with children are more likely to report that they do not regret not having a prenuptial agreement (88% vs. 63% of divorcees without children)."
Third, I agree that a prenup is a great way to learn how the two of you feel about money. However the experience will undoubtedly be shared in a somewhat adversarial environment and I think there are better ways to start that discussion. Maybe not at a psychiatrist's or priest's office, but premarital counseling is a great place to start.
Jay_Gatsby said:
Although death is inevitable, the issue is not inevitability. Rather, the issue is one of trust. Why not just verbally tell your family your wishes? Why put your wishes in a binding legal document? Don't you trust them to carry out your wishes?
Likewise, what about my "insurance" analogy? Certainly you don't think that the various kinds of insurance people buy demonstrates that the triggering event is inevitable. For example, you might buy disability insurance. Does that mean that it's inevitable you'll become disabled? What about fire, flood, or hurricane insurance? Are those things inevitable?
I'm calling that first batch of questions a strawman, but I'll knock it down anyway. You're absolutely right-- I don't trust family (or friends or the probate courts) to carry out my wishes. At best they'd be subject to "interpretation". That's especially true if my spouse & kid aren't mentally competent at the time, and I'm sure that everyone has a story about "bad" adult children grabbing for all the goodies without a clear will.
As for insurance, it's designed to help you survive the disasters that you're financially unable to handle on your own. We used to need collision insurance, now we don't have it-- and we put the premium savings toward a replacement vehicle. We used to have a $250 home insurance deductible, but now we feel we can handle $5000 that'll be funded by the premium savings. I used to have life insurance to replace my working income, but now in ER I don't need it. I used to have dental insurance, but at current priced I've decided that I don't need it either.
I suspect that, given the life-expectancy statistics, I'll always need a marriage. (With my wife would be even better!) Although it's counterintuitive to some veteran marrieds, married couples do live longer than the equivalent singletons. (Personally I think it's the nagging, or maybe it just seems longer.)
Jay_Gatsby said:
I'll admit that a pre-nup in my mind = protection. Why do I need protection? It isn't because I don't trust her NOW, but rather that there may -- and I stress MAY -- come a time that our marriage changes. People fall out of love just as often as they fall into love. You can't regulate, legislate or adjudicate love, but you can plan for the possibility (however remote a chance that may be) that you'll no longer be in love with one another.
Well, here's where I think you're missing the point. You're seeing love & marriage as a binary relationship (now it's good, oops, now it's bad) instead of an enduring, growing, changing lifestyle. Marriages DO change, and so will yours, but it's mostly for the better. IMO having a contract escape clause evades the motivation (responsibility!) for you each to find a way to negotiate a compromise. The Psych Today article says it well: "Struggles over money are really power struggles. The prenup is simply going to memorialize the power distribution that exists. You don't need to work it out in a lawyer's office--you need to work it out in a shrink's office. Without a prenup, the stronger party has got to engage in more compromise in the course of the marriage. But with a prenup, he can just say, "Honey, if you don't like it--leave."
IMO, making yourself vulnerable and having the incentive to compromise is what keeps a marriage strong. If you want another incentive, read Diane Medved's "The Case Against Divorce."
Peter76, your point is well taken. (And with your former fiancee I'd probably feel the same way.) I'd avoid a financial discussion until the cusp of the engagement. The person's response to the balance sheet will certainly tell you whether they're motivated by love or lust/money. Then you can tell your intended that you're keeping your money in your personal brokerage account as your stake for this foolproof options strategy that you want to test.
But I have to admit that this thread shows all the signs of being another eternal reciprocated diatribe. If you've never been married, or if you've been through a nasty divorce, then it might be impossible to understand why most happily-married people don't care about pre-nups. And we HMs hope we never have to learn about them!