ANSWERS: 17
-
For them its like legalizing prostitution. Once the money goes so do they.
-
i say if your dumb enough to let it happen you probably deserve it and men can marry for money too
-
No. People should just be careful who they marry. Seriously.
-
A lot of men marry for sex. Should a pre-nup be mandatory stating that they only get it xxx amount of times, and can't trade the old model in on a new one when the old one is not as hot?
-
It would make a lot of sense to have that law. It would be none too soon as far I am concerned. Better the law than the quarrels.
-
It wouldn't really do any good. A pre-nup only affects premarital and post marital assets. Thus, if a person makes $100k a year, the spouse is entitled to half even if there is a pre-nup. As for premarital assets, those only become community property if commingled, and most people with huge assets usually avoid commingling or have pre-nups. As for alimony, you need to establish a lifestyle before your are entitled to alimony. This takes time (usually years). If the husband is staying with the wife, obviously he is getting something out of the relationship (even if she just married for money).
-
A prenup should be mandatory for everyone. Not just the "rich", think of it this way. If you making 100k a year, and she wants half, you're still ok, not brilliant, but ok. But if you're making THIRTY thousand, and she want's half-shit might just have to go down. Personally I don't like the idea of marriage at all, what really is the point of merging your assets together? In the event of a divorce (50% chance) the person with the most assets will always get screwed. If this was a business decision between two companies, it would be considered not only asinine, but just plain STUPID.
-
"A lot of women" do this? Seriously? Because I've never known a woman who married with the sole intention of obtaining a divorce settlement. Maybe I'm just hanging out with the wrong crowd: morally decent people. As for whether a law should be passed to make a pre-nup mandatory....absolutely not. The last thing society needs is more laws that are meant to regulate what should fall under the guise of common frickin'sense. If you haven't read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, you should. Rand said in her book, among other things, that the day will come when there are so many laws, no one will be able to make it through the day without violating a dozen of them.
-
Most women don't marry for money. Most women marry for love. As a result, women lose their youth in marriage, only find out that their husbands leave them for younger girls and a mortgage payment. What kind of law did male politicians do for those women? What kind of law pretect women from ending up marriages with a child and domestic violence? Which woman you know does not end up that way?
-
only idiots ...like ...you
-
The fewer laws the better, if you ask me (and I am a lawyer). I don't know about your $100K ceiling, but from experience I can tell you that most men and women of wealth that are well advised do in fact enter into pre-nups. The existence of one, however, does not forbid either party from still asserting a defect in the agreement if they are truly determined to "get the $$". So the document is an impediment, but not a guarantee of the result you seek.
-
. 'More than' 100,000k could mean 102,000k or it could mean (in excess of )600,000k for example. Your proposed pre-nup law needs fine tuning . If I'm marrying the guy I need to know more precisely just how much he'll be bringing to the table first.
-
Yes, I'm in favor of that
-
I'm going to marry a man who makes less money than me and set an example for other women.
-
It should be mandatory for all men who make 150% or more then their wives
-
Sure, but aside from that point, women who do that should be shot in the head. :)
-
Well either the divorce law should be re-written or men should get protection.
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

by 