Then you keep providing examples (both real life and imagined) on how the wife can screw the husband legally and you argue that he doesn’t need legal defenses?  You’re making my case for me!  Of COURSE he needs legal help because the system is bent towards women!

I don’t really like to think about all these “worse case” scenarios, and to think about evil spouses, but y’all are surprisingly pessimistic and naive to think that a legal docuмent, signed by both spouses, wouldn’t make a difference in court.  OF COURSE IT WOULD!  Courts take signed docuмents VERY seriously!

Yeah, and in the hypothetical "signed docuмent", you talk about there being a clause to void the terms in the event that the husband abuses the wife.  Then it just boils down to whether the judge believes the woman.  She just sheds a few tears, plays it up, and the judge accepts that as abuse.  You do know that in civil proceedings the burden of proof is much lower than in criminal ones, right?  And divorce court is not heard by a jury.  It depends on the sensibilities of the judge.  Woman just starts bawling in court and 99% of divorce judges will side with her and say that the abuse voids the contract.  You're totally wrong about this.

And if you combine a prenup with no marriage license then all the craziness you talk about in divorce court can’t happen because there’s nothing to divorce, in the state’s eyes.  This is probably why that preacher recommended no license vs prenup because a lack of a license gives the courts ZERO authority over you, divorce wise. They can’t impose alimony.  

While a prenup can be argued and hurt by settlements.  The wife’s gonna get the children either way, if she wants that, so that consideration is a wash.  Child support is still a forced option (I think, I’m not sure) but a prenup could minimize that.  

The main point is, in an anti-catholic world, if all a man has is a vow from a woman, which means nothing to the state, then, naturally speaking, he’s screwed without a backup plan.  Your real-life examples prove so. 

If its not criminal abuse then the prenup penalties stand.

Only if it's worded exactly that way.  "If the husband is convicted of abuse in a criminal court ..."  But then it's unjust towards the wife and immoral because if she separates due to actual abuse, whether or not there's a criminal conviction, she's perfectly entitled to receive support from the husband.  So you're run back around in the circle to where we started.

The over-arching point of the ENTIRE discussion is that a prenup gives a husband a fighting chance at justice. 

It is most certainly not justice for the husband to withhold support for his wife and children.  As head of the family, he's ultimately responsible for its breakup and is to be held accountable.  You see, that authority and "headship" argument cuts both ways, unless you're a hypocrite and like to have your cake and eat it too.

Why should any Catholic desire that child support should be minimized?  It should in fact be maximized.  Children should not be punished and deprived for the sins of their parents.

The point is I don’t want to be told by the State how to support my family and raise my kids.  None of their business.  If you disagree then you’re advocating communism.  

As I’ve pointed out before, it’s the husbands job to support his family but HE HAS THE FINAL SAY on how that is accomplished, which the Church agrees with and is part of the natural law.  It is IMMORAL, subversive and anti-catholic for the state to be involved in micro-managing families and it is unjust theft for a husband to be forced to pay an arbitrary sum of $ for the rest of his life.  That’s the definition of slavery to the state. 

You seem to think that the wife can divorce her husband, steal his children, and get paid for it and that’s ok.  “Well, he should leave it in God’s hands”, or “He should sacrifice for his family.”

On the flip side, in a catholic country, the husband supports his family how he says, and if the wife is left to live a financially “lean” life, ESPECIALLY AFTER DIVORCING HIM AND TAKING HIS CHILDREN, “Well, she made her bed so she should lie in it”.  Or, “You reap what you sow”.

All of this presumes the husband won’t support his family, which is a sinful rash judgment.  All I’m asking for is EQUALITY and FAIR treatment, which you won’t get in the courts today...thus a prenup.  

I’d you think a man is obligated to bend over repeatedly and take abuse from all sides in a divorce proceeding then you’re a feminist.  And you’re contributing to the Monarchical society in which we live.  No wonder people complain that “Men don’t act like men” or similar...if they try to assert some legal rights or ask for equality and fairness they are chastised and ridiculed.  Such anti-catholic thinking.  

It is most certainly not justice for the husband to withhold support for his wife and children. 

Im not advocating withholding ALL support!  You’re projecting your negative opinions of men and assuming they want to screw their families.  In the scenario we’re talking about THE HUSBAND IS THE ONE WHO IS TRYING TO SAVE THE MARRIAGE, but you’re flipping the blame from the woman who initiated the divorce to the man, for not paying her to continue to live sinfully.  

In the case of a husband who abuses his wife, he would have to pay her.  I’m not saying she’s screwed.  Why is this so hard to understand?  You give all these examples of women who screwed their husbands and when I say “hey, that’s not fair”, your response is basically “it’s your job to support them no matter what.” 

Ok, but the husband gets to decide what “support” looks like.  Just like he was free to support his wife as he saw fit before divorce, so he has the same right to do so afterwards.  The wife trusted him before and she has to afterwards.  The marriage is still valid, divorce or no divorce.  The husbands rights and duties don’t change.  And the State shouldn’t be involved.  This is he purpose of a prenup - fairness and freedom.  

If a wife can’t trust a man to provide for her then she shouldn’t have gotten married to him.