Modern marriage is hugely risky compared to what it used to be. Someone who marries the same person twice must revel in risk.
To me, to add, a pre-nup sounds like a romance killer. I couldn't imagine serving one to someone I intend to spend the rest of my life with since it amounts to plan B (that and I don't think it's possible in the UK).
Falling. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/upshot/the-divorce-surge-i...
The divorce rate increased for the same reason it isn't now, swaths of social pressures that 'forced' people into getting married young, having kids and raising a family are either going away or simply ignored by more and more people. That these pressures are changing and divorce doesn't have the same stigma are good things.
> a pre-nup sounds like a romance killer
A pre-nup is dealing with the parts of marriage that have nothing to do with romance. If you're going into a marriage thinking it's nothing but romance, wine and roses, you may be in for a rude awakening.
A marriage has everything to do with romance in terms of the kind of relationship we're talking about: a romantic relationship.
Personally, I haven't made my perspective clear in my original comment. Me and my partner have lived together for some time, we have kids and our own home. I definitely don't expect a bed of roses after marriage. In fact, after the experience, it would be pretty damn foolish to expect that from a day to remember, a legal document, a few things and nice holiday.
Despite that, I still fail to see how I, myself, could serve my partner with a pre-nup after knowing, by this time, she is the person I want to spend the rest of my life with.
My opinion is perhaps related to your first paragraph in that I have 0 pressure to get married and I have hafthe luxury of giving myself the best part of a decade to make that decision. That is why in my case I wouldn't serve a pre-nup - it would pretty much say "hey were getting married after a decade of commitment and realisation we want to spend our lives together but I still don't fully believe we will so best sign this just in case". That doesn't really show commitment to me.
To conclude, I would absolutely get a pre nup if the relationship was quite new but then again I wouldn't get married like that so hastily.
To me, marriage is the highest honour you can bestow on someone. You are in effect both saying "yes I honour this person so damn much, I want us to join families". That's a major thing and it actually kinda hurts to see some people treat marriage in a way that decreases its great significance.
Not legally it doesn't and that is where a pre-nup is involved. A pre-nup is related to all the contract law around the legal institution of marriage. The law doesn't care about how much you love each other. You could marry someone to set explicit inheritance rights, absolutely hate the other person and it is still a legal marriage.
I'm not saying people don't marry for reasons other than lifetime union. I'm pretty certain I would have a prenup drawn up in the situations you give as examples. My point is that I would not treat marriage that way because it is an honour that you bestow only on the person you intend to marry.
Perhaps i'm getting confused too. I'm talking about serving what is in effect a contingency plan wrt division of assets in the event of divorce. If that is the case, I still stand by what I say in that if you feel this is necessary, perhaps you need to give it more time instead of jumping into what is the highest honour two people can bestow on each other.
Legally there is no marriage until you sign that contract at which point you are in a partnership that is covered by many, many laws because it is a legal construct, pre-nups being just one. If you can not recognize this and you go into a marriage thinking of nothing but romance, you are going into it blind and delusional.
> Except that the point of marriage is closer union with someone you intend to spend the rest of your life with
That's actually a pretty new development. You married to stop wars, you married to care for your house, you married to have kids and have someone care for them, you married to carry of the family business.
I'm sorry but what part of being in a committed relationship for the best part of a decade do you not understand? I am well aware what a marriage is legally. If you want to view marriage purely as a legal instrument, that's fine by me. To me, a marriage is, through means of law, making official a commitment I already experience. It would NOT change my day to day whatsoever and is purely a piece of paper that lays out how my long term relationship currently works anyway.
A marriage is a romantic event. It is not purely a romantic event but it is none the less. I place value in that but I also place value in the legal document that comes from it. By law, that document cements the way we have lived our lives for many years. Im not actually sure where I said it wasn't a legal contract?
As I said, I have been in a committed relationship for a long time. We have lived together and had children together. A marriage would not change that at all. Im not sure why that makes me blind or delusional? It certainly doesn't warrant the insult in any case.
That sounds very upper class and feudal in respect too. I am from a working class background and from peasantry before it. I doubt my ancestors would have been able to stop a war or continue a family business by marriage. Regardless I am not going down that rabbit hole only to be insulted.
The point is, we've both seen couples in our circles go from that to absolutely messy divorces. We simply decided that in the rare chance we don't work out, we'd have laid down the rules of separation while we still loved each other. While it certainly wasn't romantic, it didn't kill the romance.
Working out the pre-nup allowed us to really consider how harmful separation would be for both of us on an emotional level. That led to us trying to make the rules for separation as clear as possible. If anything, it strengthened our relationship.
It helps if neither party is interested in "If he/she/they cheats I get double" sorts of clauses and instead are interested in a clear, fair split regardless of the circumstances.
Perhaps my view of this kind of agreement is tarnished by the stereotypical type (you mention it with "if you cheat then x" or how someone with a lot of wealth would aim to protect that when marrying on short notice).
Thank you!
No. It's falling. Except in the age group of 50+.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6256956
We can't know the divorce rates of the people who get married now, only the people who got married years ago. Since the people who get married now are very different than the people who got married previously we can't assume that divorce rates will follow the same trends. For example, people enter marriage now older and more educated. We know both of those decrease the probability of divorce.