From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!eagle!cw
Newsgroups: net.singles
Title: Is A Marriage Contract Reasonable?
Article-I.D.: eagle.615
Posted: Wed Nov 10 23:05:25 1982
Received: Fri Nov 12 06:48:37 1982
References: ecn-pa.630


Glerum recently asked if there were a way he could protect his
(likely) wealth if and when a future marriage dissolved.  I have a
few comments, but first Glerum should know that 
divorce settlement rules are so complicated and so
local that any belief that a settlement must be 50/50 is ridiculous.

However, the obvious answer is a pre-nuptial agreement or marriage
contract.  Many writers to this group thought of this answer and
dismissed it out of hand, several scathingly.  I wonder why?

First, any marriage is obviously a contract both legally and 
emotionally.  I do not understand why discussing the parts of the
contract one feels uncomfortable with *before* the marriage is bad.
Remember, "marry in haste, repent at leisure."  I also do not 
understand why discussing the facts of the two parties' social
situation should change the emotions involved.  If the emotions
do change, the facts must overwhelmingly argue against the marriage
in the first place.

Second, marriage contracts have a long and successful tradition.
Many societies, ours included, support marriage contracts as a 
useful way to settle the terms of a union.  It is the case, of
course, that contracts are usually made only when at least one 
of the parties has substantial assets to protect (in the past,
commonly the woman).  But I have no reason to believe that
those societies in which contracts are common have any
different percentage of happy marriages than our society;
in light of recent divorce statistics in the US, perhaps
contracts are not a bad idea at all.

Finally, I would like to say that the personal attacks on
Glerum were unwarranted and offensive.  In particular, one of
the articles from the University of Washington bordered on
libel.  I hope that we have seen the last of these.

Charles