Author Topic: Do you favor State Marriage Licenses & Prenuptual Agreements ? (Read 18471 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #165 on:** June 27, 2018, 03:45:51 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on June 26, 2018, 08:48:15 PM

A lot of states don’t have common law marriage. This has already been discussed.

This is more than just common law marriage. Even without a state license, if you go in front of a priest and have a marriage ceremony, the court would still most likely construe that as a marriage.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #166 on:** June 27, 2018, 03:56:09 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on June 26, 2018, 09:04:07 PM

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.

You're a complete idiot, as you have demonstrated on other threads. You get emotionally attached to something and then begin making things up in support of your position.

It is perfectly just and compatible with the laws of God for the state to mandate that a husband support his wife and children. These arrangements to support wife and children are about the most Catholic things left in this corrupt society. Without such regulations and laws, lots of scuм deadbeat dads would disappear and stop supporting their wives and children. There's nothing wrong with the state mandating that you must support your wife and children, dirtbag. That has nothing to do with Communism, idiot. Communism is about taking what is yours and distributing it to others. But when you marry and have children, your income is no longer yours but belongs to the entire family. You are not entitled to withhold it from them. Based on your idiotic principle, you should be allowed to practically starve your children and make them walk around in filthy tattered clothing ... because YOU and you alone have the right to determine how you wish to abuse your wife and children. This has got to be one of the dumbest things you've posted here on CI, and you've set the bar pretty high.

This is nothing but some misogynistic ego trip for you and Croix.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #167 on:** June 27, 2018, 04:01:42 AM »

Quote from: MaterDominici on June 27, 2018, 01:32:09 AM

When I think of the value of a prenup, it has much more to do with the Catholic parent retaining custody than with any sort of monetary considerations.

Now that would be a wise prenup, except that it would never hold up. If you wanted to write a prenup that said something along the lines of, "If one of the couple ever stopped professing and practicing the Catholic faith, the one who remained Catholic would retain full custody of the children." Problem is that the court will throw that kind of thing out if the judge decides it would be better for the CHILDREN that they remain with the other spouse. They'll say that the contract can't bind the children.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #168 on:** June 27, 2018, 04:04:46 AM »

Quote from: Croix de Fer on June 26, 2018, 09:05:10 PM

Your wife can bring just about any false accusation against you and ruin you. The hell you would have to endure would begin immediately. And it's easy to falsify evidence of "battery" and "abuse".

Of course she can, and she could use this to have the prenup thrown out or seek other damages in a civil case. There's no piece of paper that could protect you from this kind of thing.

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #169 on:** June 27, 2018, 05:33:16 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on June 27, 2018, 04:04:46 AM

Of course she can, and she could use this to have the prenup thrown out or seek other damages in a civil case. There's no piece of paper that could protect you from this kind of thing.

Not necessarily, and it would be even more difficult if there was no state marriage license and common law "marriages" didn't apply in the state.

Jaynek · « **Reply #170 on:** June 27, 2018, 07:07:39 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on June 27, 2018, 03:56:09 AM

You're a complete idiot, as you have demonstrated on other threads. You get emotionally attached to something and then begin making things up in support of your position.

It is perfectly just and compatible with the laws of God for the state to mandate that a husband support his wife and children. These arrangements to support wife and children are about the most Catholic things left in this corrupt society. Without such regulations and laws, lots of scuм deadbeat dads would disappear and stop supporting their wives and children. There's nothing wrong with the state mandating that you must support your wife and children, dirtbag. That has nothing to do with Communism, idiot. Communism is about taking what is yours and distributing it to others. But when you marry and have children, your income is no longer yours but belongs to the entire family. You are not entitled to withhold it from them. Based on your idiotic principle, you should be allowed to practically starve your children and make them walk around in filthy tattered clothing ... because YOU and you alone have the right to determine how you wish to abuse your wife and children. This has got to be one of the dumbest things you've posted here on CI, and you've set the bar pretty high.

This is nothing but some misogynistic ego trip for you and Croix.

It isn't fair to put Pax in the same category as Croix. Pax has been engaging is reasoned debate and refraining from personal attacks. He even called Croix out for going too far.

It isn't right to be calling Pax names like that.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #171 on:** June 27, 2018, 07:29:35 AM »

Ladidlaus is a very intelligent guy and I enjoy his debates but his fuse is too short and once he gets tired of a discussion, he gets frustrated. Then he calls people names, puts words in their mouth and takes comments out of context to make them look stupid. Par for the course.

All of you can argue that a prenup would be pointless but you’d be ignoring reality and the fact that a good lawyer, who has experience in family court, can do a LOT to minimize the damage of false accusations and protect you from theft.

(Sarcasm alert) But then, if a man tried to protect himself, that means its ONLY because he wants to be selfish and have his (former) family be destitute and keep all his money. There’s no reason to avoid courts because they care about the wife (who left him) more than he does. All he cares about is money because he’s a dirtbag who wont bend over and take the feminist punishment that the almighty courts deem is merciful. (Sarcasm done)

Good golly, y’all. We live in a police state and have a corrupt legal system and you are oblivious to these dangers.

TxTrad · « **Reply #172 on:** June 27, 2018, 08:47:04 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on June 26, 2018, 04:57:57 PM

Apart from the possibility of scandal, civil divorce is meaningless. I can see a couple who have separated under conditions permitted by the Church also seeking a civil divorce ... for various pragmatic reasons. So long as one does not see himself or herself as free to remarry, it is not akin to ѕυιcιdє/murder. Let's say you have a wife who is in fact severely abused or being cheated on, there's nothing wrong with her separating and then seeking a civil divorce so that she can have the children provided for. Nothing at all. She would be merely enforcing her rights against a husband who has violated hers. All of this prenup talk is assuming a scenario where the woman is primarily to blame vs. where the man is to blame. Such a man would walk away under the terms of a prenup and not provide for his wife and children as required by God's law.

So if Croix et al. are claiming that a man would be nuts not to have a prenup, one might say the same thing about a wife agreeing to one. WHAT IF in the future the husband cheats and/or severely abuses her, and she's entitled to separate. Then under the prenup she and her children would be out of luck in terms of getting the financial support she deserves from the derelict husband. She would be nuts to sign one. This provision against possible future scenarios runs BOTH WAYS.

:applause:
Very well said.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #173 on:** June 27, 2018, 08:57:00 AM »

Quote

All of this prenup talk is assuming a scenario where the woman is primarily to blame vs. where the man is to blame. Such a man would walk away under the terms of a prenup and not provide for his wife and children as required by God's law.

Again, you assume the man is a dirtbag and would leave his family destitute, even though the 2 real-life examples YOU provided show the wife to be at fault. More feminism from you.

Quote

WHAT IF in the future the husband cheats and/or severely abuses her, and she's entitled to separate. Then under the prenup she and her children would be out of luck in terms of getting the financial support she deserves from the derelict husband.

A prenup is for the benefit of BOTH spouses. This has already been covered, but again, you project your feminism onto every husband and assume he's at fault.

TxTrad · « **Reply #174 on:** June 27, 2018, 10:00:48 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on June 26, 2018, 04:57:57 PM

Apart from the possibility of scandal, civil divorce is meaningless. I can see a couple who have separated under conditions permitted by the Church also seeking a civil divorce ... for various pragmatic reasons. So long as one does not see himself or herself as free to remarry, it is not akin to ѕυιcιdє/murder. Let's say you have a wife who is in fact severely abused or being cheated on, there's nothing wrong with her separating and then seeking a civil divorce so that she can have the children provided for. Nothing at all. She would be merely enforcing her rights against a husband who has violated hers. All of this prenup talk is assuming a scenario where the woman is primarily to blame vs. where the man is to blame. Such a man would walk away under the terms of a prenup and not provide for his wife and children as required by God's law.

So if Croix et al. are claiming that a man would be nuts not to have a prenup, one might say the same thing about a wife agreeing to one. WHAT IF in the future the husband cheats and/or severely abuses her, and she's entitled to separate. Then under the prenup she and her children would be out of luck in terms of getting the financial support she deserves from the derelict husband. She would be nuts to sign one. This provision against possible future scenarios runs BOTH WAYS.

.
It seems to me that pax and cdf forget that while the husband is off making the money the wife is working hard in the home. There is no reason a wife should not get 50% of what is jointly theirs, that she worked hard for, no matter the reason for the civil divorce (annulment is another matter). Further, the children are his and he has a moral obligation to support them. The courts only require support until age 18, yet many children need support far beyond that.
.
The reasons for the civil divorce are on the souls of the parties involved and God will sort it all out.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #175 on:** June 27, 2018, 10:13:20 AM »

Quote

There is no reason a wife should not get 50% of what is jointly theirs,

That would be a fair judgment. The problem we're trying to avoid is the civil divorce process, whereby woman are NORMALLY awarded MUCH MORE THAN 50%. Any judgement in favor of the woman where she get's more than 50% is unjust and a prenup would help (but not guarantee) fairness. That's all i'm asking for.

Quote

Further, the children are his and he has a moral obligation to support them.

If the wife receives 50% then that is part of his support. She doesn't get 50% + child support. That's unfair and what a prenup is supposed to avoid.

If he wishes to help out his children more in the future (which I'm sure he would want to, regardless of most of your rash judgements to the contrary) he has the freedom to do so AS HE PLEASES, WHEN HE PLEASES, and in the manner HE CHOOSES. It's none of the damn court's/state's business.

And he can buy things DIRECTLY for his children, not be forced to give $ to his wife, who can then spend it on anything she wants. (Do the courts monitor child support payments and make sure the wife uses the $ ONLY for the children? Of course not, that would be anti-woman because we MUST trust her to do the right thing ALWAYS, especially when it comes to the children because she's a "loving" person and above reproach....even though she left her husband for frivolous reasons and has inflicted untold psychological damage on the children due to her selfishness...)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #176 on:** June 27, 2018, 11:41:32 AM »

I'd also like to point out the similarities in philosophy between a prenup and the TRADITIONAL nuptial blessing. (If you want to read the true blessing vs new-rome's modernist/feminist verion, you can here: https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/feminism-and-the-nuptial-blessing/)

The point is, when the idea of a prenup was brought up with the purpose of protecting men from theft, to ensure a fair divorce and (in some cases) to prevent divorce altogether, the responses were similar to the following:

"Oh, you need to just trust your wife. A prenup says you don't trust her."
"If you pray to God for a good spouse, you won't have to worry."
"A prenup is a preparation for a divorce and it shows you're not committed for life."

Is that so? Is that what a prenup says to you? Because the idea behind one is pretty similar to the Church's message/prayer FOR THE WIFE after the marriage, AND DURING THE ACTUAL MASS. The Church is basically saying, "Hey you just got married and we're in the middle of this mass for you, which is filled with graces, but We still think you, oh newly wed wife, need an EXTRA reminder to keep the faith, be faithful and watch out for the devil's deceits.

I guess the Church "doesn't trust the wife".
I guess the Church is wrong for "worrying about the wife" since the couple just went to mass.
I guess the Church should see that the Nuptial Blessing "presupposes a divorce, or problems" in the marriage.

A prenup is just an extension of the ideals contained in the Nuptial Blessing.

Jaynek · « **Reply #177 on:** June 27, 2018, 11:43:20 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on June 27, 2018, 07:29:35 AM

All of you can argue that a prenup would be pointless but you’d be ignoring reality and the fact that a good lawyer, who has experience in family court, can do a LOT to minimize the damage of false accusations and protect you from theft.

If prenups were all that effective, there wouldn't be a MGTOW movement. Men wouldn't be giving up on marriage to this extent if it were simple to avoid the injustice of the system.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #178 on:** June 27, 2018, 11:49:28 AM »

Quote

If prenups were all that effective, there wouldn't be a MGTOW movement.

I'm not an expert on this movement but I do know it's more complex than you make it out to be. Some of the men in the movement are tired of DATING; they're tired of dealing with feminist women, period. They're not even thinking about marrige/divorce, because they can't even find a decent woman who wants to go to dinner, (who isn't selfish, self-absorbed, emotionally unstable and with a "disney complex" view of who their prince charming should be and what they "deserve").

TxTrad · « **Reply #179 on:** June 27, 2018, 12:57:59 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on June 27, 2018, 10:13:20 AM

That would be a fair judgment. The problem we're trying to avoid is the civil divorce process, whereby woman are NORMALLY awarded MUCH MORE THAN 50%. Any judgement in favor of the woman where she get's more than 50% is unjust and a prenup would help (but not guarantee) fairness. That's all i'm asking for.If the wife receives 50% then that is part of his support. She doesn't get 50% + child support. That's unfair and what a prenup is supposed to avoid.

If he wishes to help out his children more in the future (which I'm sure he would want to, regardless of most of your rash judgements to the contrary) he has the freedom to do so AS HE PLEASES, WHEN HE PLEASES, and in the manner HE CHOOSES. It's none of the damn court's/state's business.

And he can buy things DIRECTLY for his children, not be forced to give $ to his wife, who can then spend it on anything she wants. (Do the courts monitor child support payments and make sure the wife uses the $ ONLY for the children? Of course not, that would be anti-woman because we MUST trust her to do the right thing ALWAYS, especially when it comes to the children because she's a "loving" person and above reproach....even though she left her husband for frivolous reasons and has inflicted untold psychological damage on the children due to her selfishness...)

.
In my experiences here in TX, women get awarded much LESS than 50%. If she is abused and leaves the house, the court awards the house to the husband because she abandoned the house... the 50% divides the assests since the marriage began. It has nothing to do with the children.
.
Regarding the children... If she is the primary caretaker of the children, and she earns less than the father (which is usually the case) she most certainly SHOULD get child support from the father. She should not have to support their children alone. It is his moral duty to support his children. It is not an option for him to choose.
.
It IS the courts business only because there are so many men who don't fulfill their moral obligation to their children. It is the result of a godless society.
.
You act as though the child support from the husband is more than enough to pay for everything for his children with some left over for the mother to spend how she chooses. This is not how it works. Here in TX, the court determines how much, in their opinion, it takes to rear the children. The father pays HALF that. So the mother has to come up with the other half.
.
In some cases the father is awarded primary custody and the wife, if she makes more than the husband, has to pay child support. It works both ways.
.
If either left and divorced for frivolous reasons, God will sort it out and the punishments will be severe.
.
Best to know as much as you can about a future spouse and not get led around by feelings.

Poll

Where do you stand on Marriage Prenups and State Marriage Licenses?

Author Topic: Do you favor State Marriage Licenses & Prenuptual Agreements ? (Read 18471 times)

Ladislaus

Re: Do you favor State Marriage Licenses & Prenuptual Agreements ?

Ladislaus

Re: Do you favor State Marriage Licenses & Prenuptual Agreements ?

Ladislaus

Re: Do you favor State Marriage Licenses & Prenuptual Agreements ?

Ladislaus

Re: Do you favor State Marriage Licenses & Prenuptual Agreements ?

Croix de Fer

Re: Do you favor State Marriage Licenses & Prenuptual Agreements ?

Jaynek

Re: Do you favor State Marriage Licenses & Prenuptual Agreements ?

Pax Vobis

Re: Do you favor State Marriage Licenses & Prenuptual Agreements ?

TxTrad

Re: Do you favor State Marriage Licenses & Prenuptual Agreements ?

Pax Vobis

Re: Do you favor State Marriage Licenses & Prenuptual Agreements ?

TxTrad

Re: Do you favor State Marriage Licenses & Prenuptual Agreements ?

Pax Vobis

Re: Do you favor State Marriage Licenses & Prenuptual Agreements ?

Pax Vobis

Re: Do you favor State Marriage Licenses & Prenuptual Agreements ?

Jaynek

Re: Do you favor State Marriage Licenses & Prenuptual Agreements ?

Pax Vobis

Re: Do you favor State Marriage Licenses & Prenuptual Agreements ?

TxTrad

Re: Do you favor State Marriage Licenses & Prenuptual Agreements ?