One of the articles I wrote for The Huffington Post regarding alimony brought up a lot of emotion from women who have been raising children and feel they deserve to be paid for the service. It seems that some feel that marriage is a contract and when that contract is broken, the person who broke the marriage must pay -- and pay dearly.
It may sound surprising, but plenty of cultures do have marriage contracts. For instance, in Judaism, it is called a Ketubah. The Ketubah, as described on Judaism 101, spells out the husband's obligations to the wife during marriage, the conditions of inheritance upon his death, and obligations regarding the child support. It also provides for the wife's support in the event of divorce. There are standard conditions; however, additional conditions can be included by mutual agreement.
In Judaism, they believe that the Ketubah will discourage the man from divorcing his wife, because of the financial obligation that is set upon them with this contract. Interestingly enough, the divorce rate for Jews is around 30 percent.
Followers of Islam take their marriage contracts very seriously. In order for the marriage contract to be considered legal, some conditions must first be met. Both parties must be adults and sane, and the man and woman being married cannot have been breastfed by the same woman. According to Islamweb.net, the marriage contract must follow certain pillars, including offer and acceptance. For most scholars, the offer must be from the woman's side and the acceptance from the man -- the prospective husband and the guardian of the woman. Some scholars count the presence of witnesses and dowries among the pillars as well.
Research conducted in the early 1990s by the late New York-based sociologist Ilyas Ba-Yunus estimated the North American Muslim divorce rate stood at 31.14 percent, three times higher than the highest divorce rate in Muslim countries, which was 10 percent in Egypt and Turkey. According to 2008 figures, the divorce rate in Islamic countries was 20 percent.
In American society, we call a marriage contract a prenuptial agreement. The prenup is a contract between two people who are about to wed that spells out how assets will be distributed in the event of divorce or death. Rather than being required by religious or other beliefs, however, prenups are often used between two wealthy partners, and are a common pre-requisite for celebrity marriages.
Of course, others may view wedding vows and the exchange of rings as a form of a marriage contract, with the marriage license serving as the documentation. Regardless of what you consider a contract, the question remains: are marriage contracts good or bad? Do they add a layer of protection and security to the marriage, or are they viewed instead as binding, restrictive documents that leach all of the romance out of the union? Those are questions that must be answered by every person who decides to enter into marriage. What works for some certainly doesn't work for others, but regardless of what you decide, don't let others make you feel bad about your decision. It's your life and your marriage, and if you opt for a religious-based contract or prenup agreement, that's your business.
Things to consider when drafting a prenuptial agreement:
That being said, if you go the prenup route, you may want to consider inserting a protective clause into your prenup or contract that outlines financial support in the event of divorce. With the divorce rate continuing to hover around 50 percent, it's no wonder that married couples want to feel more secure in their decision.
Your prenup may outline several conditions that must be fulfilled should one person be at fault for ending the marriage. That way, if those conditions aren't met, you have documentation that will give you additional legal recourse. It's a rather stark way of looking at the situation, yet it's practical, too.
And lastly, be smart. If you're entering into a prenup, it's only smart to have your own attorney take a look at it and make sure you're protected. Taking steps like this now can potentially save you heartache (and money) in the future. The process gives new meaning to Stevie Wonder's "Signed, Sealed, Delivered," doesn't it? But in the business world, contracts are entered into all the time -- and a prenup is often just smart business.
A piece of advice? Consider a marriage contract or prenup from a practical point of view instead of demonizing it as a wholly unromantic document. A marriage is about the merging of two people and their lives, but it's also about protecting yourself and your assets. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with watching out for me, myself and I. If you don't, who else will?
Follow Lee Block on Twitter: www.twitter.com/LeeBlock
They wrote it about 25 years ago. It was actually written for the legislature by special interest groups who have no regard for the best interests of the general population.
It appears as the state's divorce law in the statute books.
It is unfair, outdated, gender-biased, unclear and ambiguous.
And it has created a very profitable divorce industry.
Divorce lawyers make a fortune -- converting the marital assets/college savings of divorcing households into legal fees -- by using the unfairness and ambiguities to fan the flames of divorce conflict/litigation.
==> Two smart people planning to get married certainly can write a better pre-nuptial agreement for themselves and their situation than the pre-nuptial agreement on the statute books.
There should be no stigma attached to that wise collective/joint action taken before a wedding.
... Fritz N.
P.S. I like my balls stay with me
It is kind of like a will. When you die without a will, the state uses their best guess will for you. If you prefer, you can write your own, instead.
So to be clear, everyone who gets married has a prenup.
But if she breaks the contract, she pays nothing, and is usually rewarded with a great financial benefit for doing so. Marriage is an asymmetrical contract where only males are held to adherence. Women are rewarded for violation of the contract.
Women are awarded child custody in over 80% of all divorces.
More and more women are earning more than their husbands - and even in those cases, the male is usually paid nothing. But, a few cases have been resolved with the female paying the male in recent years. It is only now, that some alimony reform measures are actually being passed.
Children should not be a meal ticket. If one parent cannot support them, the children should be placed with the parent who can support them. If his wages supported them when the marriage was intact, why should that change now? Yet the children are placed with the mother, who then not only collects financial support from the father, but also government assistance for the children. This is foolish public policy. It encourages divorce, and one party to the divorce profits from the failed marriage. The taxpayer also subsidizes the destruction of marriages, and takes on great expense to do so. The taxpayer now supports children who were once supported by
That is, that divorce is overwhelmingly driven by wives. Surveys of divorced couples show that women initiate nearly three times as many divorces as men. This is well-substantiated, but hardly anybody seems to know it. Part of the reason is probably statements like: "In Judaism, they believe that the Ketubah will discourage the man from divorcing his wife, because of the financial obligation that is set upon them with this contract." How can a responsible writer make that comment without pointing out that the concern is misplaced?
Look at this way: If the number of male-initiated divorces fell by half, the overall divorce rate would decline from a little over 40 percent to a little under 40 percent. If the number of female-initiated divorces fell by half, the divorce rate would drop from a little over 40 percent to a little over 20 percent.
The problem is clear: Women energetically embrace divorce. The question is: Why? This author had a chance to explore that issue, but didn't. I'll give it a try:
It seems that women have an unwritten contract in mind which states that they are entitled to a marriage filled with romance, passion, sensitivity, communication and connection. If they don't get that, they consider the marriage a failure and, quite often, seek divorce.
Let's get that unwritten contract out in the open.
It's very unfortunate that you feel alone. Divorce more than doubles a man's risk of suicide, and suicide is a major male cause of death -- 25,000 a year in the U.S. If 4 percent of those could be traced to divorce -- I've never been able to track down good data on it -- that would be 1,000 men dead by their own hands due to divorce. By comparison, husbands kill 600 women in the U.S. each year. And yet every hamlet big enough for a McDonald's has a government-funded women's shelter, while to my knowledge there is nothing remotely similar to help men survive divorce.
Basically, nobody cares about us. And nobody knows about us. They believe a pack of myths -- men initiate most divorces, women suffer more from divorce, etc .-- and until science replaces myth, it'll stay that way.
Meanwhile, I'm with you, man. Hang in there. You're not alone.
According to Margaret F. Brinig and Douglas W. Allen in "These Boots Are Made for Walking: Why Wives File for Divorce," The percentage of divorces initiated by wives was well over 60 percent during the 19th Century in America, when presumably divorce law was less favorable to women, who were after all not even full-fledged citizens. In the 20th Century it averaged a little over 70 percent, peaking at more than 80 percent in some localities after the introduction of no-fault divorce. Brinig's analysis concluded that expectation of custody was by far the most powerful factor controlling who initiated divorce. But I'm not sure that it would make a very big difference even if universal equal custody was actual practiced (as opposed to merely given lip service.)
I guess I'd like to start by making it plain to men who are getting married that women typically expect far more from marriage than most of them will admit, or perhaps are aware of. And these expectations are strong enough to make them take actions clearly harmful to their children and former partners if not satisfied.
What we do about it besides putting it in the open -- and enacting real universal equal custody -- I'm not sure. But thanks for the comment.
"At the upper levels of income, child support awards clearly represent thinly disguised alimony in that amounts awarded are far in excess of what is required for reasonable child support."
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/JCS/taskforce/report_final.pdf