Religious Marriage w/o Legal Contract

[Book_Worm]

OP, you are woefully ignorant of the financial realities of divorce. Study after study have shown that a woman’s financial situation decreases after divorce while a man’s almost invariably improves.

Twenty percent of women fall into poverty after divorce. Three out of four women never receive their full child support (NOT spousal support).

In most states, spousal support is not given unless the marriage is of long duration, and even then it’s for a short period of time. And if the woman is the major earner, SHE’S the one who pays spousal support.

I am beyond appalled that you give kudos to a man who refuses to meet his obligations to the children HE has created. If he merely felt that his spousal support was unfair (after his wife paid him half their equity in the house so he didn’t “give” her anything), he could have continued to pay the child support. But this is not someone taking a courageous stand against an unfair system; it’s a deadbeat who refuses to meet his obligations. That some of his children have special needs makes him that much more despicable.

The fact that this is the type of person you admire speaks volumes about your values and character. Makes some woman very happy - don’t ever marry.

 

[enterthenewage]

I reread everything that was said in this thread, including the most recent responses.

A few of you insist that I don’t know how the legal system works. I will deny such claims till the day I die. I too have witnessed how the divorce system works. Can it work the other way if the woman is wealthy and the man isn’t? Sure, but I am concerned about the realities of this world and reality is that men tend to be the ones who are getting drained by the family courts.

Another major point that kept coming up was “valid marriage” in the eyes of the Church. Basically, several of you stated that the Church is against people making preparations of any kind in case things turn out horribly wrong. This idea is something that I disagree with 100%. This is not a question of maturity or immaturity as some of you will try to make it sound like. This is an ideological difference and I do not accept the Church’s teaching on this matter. I feel that this particular teaching is harmful and makes people extremely vulnerable to a parasitic legal system that has become a part of American society, like a tapeworm inside of a host. Throughout my life, I have been taught to be happy when things go well, but to make preparations if things don’t work out. Random misfortune is the reason why people have car insurance, health insurance, home insurance, money put off to the side, home security systems, natural disaster preparations, etc. I don’t think marriage should be any different. If I do get married, I would probably consider putting a % of my monthly income off to the side in case a divorce does occur. And that probably would not be the only precautionary measure I will take anyway.

As I mentioned before, my parents’ marriage went down in flames. When they separated, I was not sad. In fact, I was very happy because it meant that there would be no more shouting matches on a daily basis and I would no longer have to be around my mother. The divorce was ugly and drove my welfare class family even further into poverty. As all of that was happening, I swore to myself that I would never let something like this happen to me ever again. I decided that if I ever did marry, that it would be to a virgin. No college sluts turned saintly, no “I only slept with one guy and regretted it since” girls, none of that goofy born-again nonsense, and certainly no girls who did anal instead of vaginal sex. Only a true virgin. However, a lot of people seem to have an issue with “not forgiving a potential spouse for their past sins like Jesus did”. The bottom line is that I won’t move in the direction of marriage unless there is something in it for me. Spare me the lecture on how that’s also immoral too The bottom line is that most people only take risks if there is something in it for them. That is human nature. Especially after what I went through, I am not even going to bother with marriage unless I can get the perks I want from the girl I’m with.

Regarding the article I posted about the guy who went to the Philippines, there was disagreement on that as well. I still stand by my statement that he did the right thing. If I was his position, the only thing I would have done differently would be to try to kidnap my kids as well. He sets a good example for men on how to resist the system peacefully without resorting to Timothy McVeigh-style bombings of county court houses and state legislature buildings. Once person mentioned that he should have paid the child support but not the spousal support, if he felt it was really that unjust. If the state is going to treat a man unjustly like that, then the state should also be responsible for providing his children with welfare benefits at taxpayer expense. Another 1-2 people mentioned the mortgage on the house. If either the woman or the judge had functional brain tissue instead of walnuts in their skulls, they would realize that the woman needs to get rid of the house and downsize to something much smaller in a cheaper area. A home valued at over 1 million is not your average house. That is clearly a rich area.

Some of you posted statistics that divorced women have a lot of financial difficulties after the divorce and I agree with that. A lot of times, both parties take a hit. But that still doesn’t mean the state refrains from treating the husband like a one-man welfare agency who is responsible for supporting the ex-wife. I do not think the state has a right to treat a man like a piggy bank that the woman gets. IMO, if she can’t support herself after a divorce, there are two options on the table: 1) move back in with her parents OR 2) homeless shelter.

Some also said that alimony rarely gets awarded. Well it was awarded in my family’s case and we are dirt poor. I don’t care how temporary it is. Like I said before, if a woman can’t support herself, she has the options I listed above.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I reread everything that was said in this thread, including the most recent responses.

A few of you insist that I don’t know how the legal system works. I will deny such claims till the day I die. I too have witnessed how the divorce system works. Can it work the other way if the woman is wealthy and the man isn’t? Sure, but I am concerned about the realities of this world and reality is that men tend to be the ones who are getting drained by the family courts.

While I am not an attorney, part of my job description is as an expert witness is divorce cases (I’m qualified to testify, and have testified, in several states). You do not understand how the legal system works. You are failing to mention that if the mother stayed home and raised the children while the father worked, the wife is likely to get alimony, at least for a time. Guess what happens if the husband stays home with the kids while the wife work (hint: if you guess the wife still gets alimony, you would be wrong).

As I mentioned before, my parents’ marriage went down in flames.

Which explains your bitter and belligerent attitude to marriage. You need to recognize that so as to not repeat their mistakes. As is blatantly obvious to anyone reading your posts, their divorce has biased your attitude, you are following right in their footsteps, and setting yourself up for failure.

I decided that if I ever did marry, that it would be to a virgin.

My virgin first wife cheated on me, dumped me, and divorced me. Her parents also divorced. See a pattern here? Virginity is not the solution to your blindness.

 

[Xantippe]

enterthenewage said:

“If either the woman or the judge had functional brain tissue instead of walnuts in their skulls, they would realize that the woman needs to get rid of the house and downsize to something much smaller in a cheaper area. A home valued at over 1 million is not your average house. That is clearly a rich area.”

That’s not for the judge to decide–it’s up to the spouse who gets the house to sell or not sell. There’s often a division of the home equity and one spouse buys the other out of the house (as happened in this case). “Getting the house” under these circumstances is often a bit of a booby prize, particularly once the equity is all hollowed out and there isn’t adequate income to keep the house going.

Purely financially speaking, you are correct that keeping the house is often a mistake.

 

[thewanderer]

I reread everything that was said in this thread, including the most recent responses.

A few of you insist that I don’t know how the legal system works. I will deny such claims till the day I die. I too have witnessed how the divorce system works. Can it work the other way if the woman is wealthy and the man isn’t? Sure, but I am concerned about the realities of this world and reality is that men tend to be the ones who are getting drained by the family courts.

But the fact is your focusing on the wrong issue. Men aren’t the ones that have to pay, its the breadwinner spouse, the one who earns money, who ends up paying. That is why people have been saying you don’t understand how it works, you keep claiming its some sort of gender discrimination against men when its not not at all. Rather its a matter of the party who did not give up their ability to take care of themselves pitching in to help out the party who did give up their ability to take care of themselves in recognition of the fact that the loss of earning potential the spouse who stayed at home or worked part-time took on for the family. Now, this makes it pretty clear, if you don’t want to be the party in the marriage who has to pay go marry a woman who will be the breadwinner and be a stay at home dad. Problem solved.

As I mentioned before, my parents’ marriage went down in flames. When they separated, I was not sad. In fact, I was very happy because it meant that there would be no more shouting matches on a daily basis and I would no longer have to be around my mother. The divorce was ugly and drove my welfare class family even further into poverty. As all of that was happening, I swore to myself that I would never let something like this happen to me ever again. I decided that if I ever did marry, that it would be to a virgin.

While it is of course totally fine for you to make this determination, I caution you against assuming virgin=good spouse material. Just because they are virgins does not mean they are marriage material.

Some of you posted statistics that divorced women have a lot of financial difficulties after the divorce and I agree with that. A lot of times, both parties take a hit.

But the point is that you seem to think that these women are taking men to the cleaners, how is it possible that women are gaining the financial edge over men in divorce if women are consistently financially worse off than men after a divorce?

But that still doesn’t mean the state refrains from treating the husband like a one-man welfare agency who is responsible for supporting the ex-wife. I do not think the state has a right to treat a man like a piggy bank that the woman gets. IMO, if she can’t support herself after a divorce, there are two options on the table: 1) move back in with her parents OR 2) homeless shelter.

So if she gives up her future earnings potential to be take care of the family he should be able to go dump her in a homeless shelter the instant a newer younger model comes along? You really think that that is a fair and equitable scenario? I am asking this seriously, do you honestly think that a legal system that allows the stay at home parent to be put in a homeless shelter whenever the breadwinner decides they get bored with their current marriage is a fair legal system?

 

[The_Bucket]

So if she gives up her future earnings potential to be take care of the family he should be able to go dump her in a homeless shelter the instant a newer younger model comes along? You really think that that is a fair and equitable scenario? I am asking this seriously, do you honestly think that a legal system that allows the stay at home parent to be put in a homeless shelter whenever the breadwinner decides they get bored with their current marriage is a fair legal system?

Of course he does. Because women are not really people and housework and raising children is not actual work. How does he know this? Because his mom was a terrible person and his father could do no wrong.

Look, I have a lot of sympathy for people who come from broken homes. Divorce is a nasty, terrible thing and there’s a reason that the Church stands firmly against it. It might be a necessary thing sometimes, but it’s never a good thing. It’s basically domestic warfare. War is sometimes just, but it is never a moral good. And just as it is in war, divorce always leads to casualties and scarring of those who were caught in the crossfire.

The fact that the OP does not listen to TheWarriorMonk, who has been there, done that on basically every level, is indicative of either blind belligerence to facts or trolling.

As others have advised… just don’t get married. Seriously. Marriage is an insane risk that involves giving entirely of yourself to another person on a consistent basis. We all fall short of giving our spouses 100% all of the time, but many of us who are married or wish to be married, at least recognize the goal. You don’t see that as part of the vocation OP, and while you are dead wrong about it, that’s fine… provided that you don’t get married. So… don’t. And then you’ll be able to hang onto all the cool stuff you have. Don’t expect not getting married to keep you from experiencing additional emotional pain though. Plenty of family and friends around that could do that. All the more reason to place your faith and trust in Christ, who will never let you down.

 

[Xantippe]

The Bucket said:

“Marriage is an insane risk that involves giving entirely of yourself to another person on a consistent basis.”

Right. And even the best of spouses may be paralyzed in an accident or suffer from dementia. Even the best of wives may be temporarily incapacitated by pregnancy or by postpartum depression.

And then there’s children–they may be ADHD, ASD, OCD, ODD, etc. There’s a whole alphabet soup of problems that even kids that look totally normal can have. It’s possible to have a totally healthy looking child who will never speak or look you in the face. There are lots of families with children who will never be able to leave home and who will be children forever, no matter how frail and elderly their parents get. And with regard to physical health, there are many possible infirmities. I know a family where one of their older children had to have a major organ transplant as a preschooler, after years of waiting. That sort of thing changes your whole life–what you can do, what you can’t do.

Even fairly normal kids are expensive and wreck your stuff–draw on walls, scribble on the leather sofa, teethe on coffee tables like little beavers, graffiti up a crib, shred books and magazines, spill juice in the back seat of the car, grind chocolate into carpet, drop and break dishes, etc. (That’s all stuff I’ve seen myself over the years.) And they legally must be supported until 18, and practically, they generally wind up being subsidized rather longer than that.

If you like your stuff, I can’t think of a worse thing to do than marrying and having a family.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

While the comments of the OP annoy me, I do realize that immaturity may be at play in his comments. When we are outside of a situation that we know we will eventually be in, we often examine and obsess over it; e.g., thinking about marriage before being married, thinking about having a child before having one etc. And we’ll often come to ridiculous conclusions as a result.Then once one gets married, has a child, etc., reality smacks them right in the face and all those thoughts, ideas, and plans go right out the window.

Lastly, it’s always important to remember that our plan is not God’s plan. The OP is simply describing his own plan; God may have another one for him. We’ve all seen plenty of people end of living a very different life than the planned on, and that may indeed be the case for the OP.

 

[Xantippe]

I think I know what the explanation is for the social science that says that divorced men see their standard of living go up after divorce.

Within married life, it may be typical for the vast majority of family resources to be spent on children (or associated expenses–for instance a family-sized house). In my family, for instance, I’d estimate that easily 4/5-9/10 of our budget goes for stuff that my husband wouldn’t need or want, were he a bachelor. In the event of divorce, that situation gets turned on its head–instead of spending 4/5 of income on kids, the newly divorced guy might be able to cut down to spending only 1/5 of his income on kids.

And that’s why all this boohooing from Men’s Rights people about custody and child support is so misplaced–purely in terms of material standard of living, they do come out ahead.

“These findings aren’t a surprise. According to George Mason University Sociology and law professor Lenore Weitzman in her book “The Divorce Revolution,” a typical woman endures a 73 percent reduction in her standard of living after a divorce. Her typical ex-husband enjoys a 42 percent increased standard of living.”

huffingtonpost.com/brendan-lyle/after-divorce-women-rebou_1_b_1970733.html

Marriage has interesting effects on net worth:

usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-01-18-marriagewealth_x.htm

“A study by an Ohio State University researcher shows that a person who marries — and stays married — accumulates nearly twice as much personal wealth as a person who is single or divorced. And for those who divorce, it’s a bit more expensive than giving up half of everything they own. They lose, on average, three-fourths of their personal net worth.
wealth.”

“David Popenoe, co-director of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University, said people become more economically productive after they marry. “They work harder, they advance further in their job, they save more money, and maybe invest more wisely,” Popenoe said. “That’s because, one can speculate, they are now working for something larger than themselves. They are working for a family.” Zagorsky showed that single people slowly accumulated wealth during the study, going from a median of $1,500 at the start to $10,900 in the 15th year. Married people accumulated wealth much faster, accumulating 93% more than single or divorced people over the life of the study, Zagorsky said. People who divorced started losing net worth four years before their divorces were final, Zagorsky said. That could be because they had separated before divorcing, forcing them to support two households, he said. The study found that men fared better than women after divorce, holding about 2 1/2 times the wealth. However, in dollars, it added up to a difference of only $5,124. “While men come out slightly ahead, divorce destroys wealth dramatically for both sexes,” Zagorsky wrote in his study.”

That article doesn’t spell it out, but I think a lot of the increased wealth-building power of married people comes from the fact that they believe in their relationship, they believe in their future together, and they know they are building something together for each other and their children.

There is a lot of social science on this stuff, and it’s worth having a look.

 

[His_helpmeet]

I reread everything that was said in this thread, including the most recent responses.

A few of you insist that I don’t know how the legal system works. I will deny such claims till the day I die. I too have witnessed how the divorce system works. Can it work the other way if the woman is wealthy and the man isn’t? Sure, but I am concerned about the realities of this world and reality is that men tend to be the ones who are getting drained by the family courts.

Another major point that kept coming up was “valid marriage” in the eyes of the Church. Basically, several of you stated that the Church is against people making preparations of any kind in case things turn out horribly wrong. This idea is something that I disagree with 100%. This is not a question of maturity or immaturity as some of you will try to make it sound like. This is an ideological difference and I do not accept the Church’s teaching on this matter. I feel that this particular teaching is harmful and makes people extremely vulnerable to a parasitic legal system that has become a part of American society, like a tapeworm inside of a host. Throughout my life, I have been taught to be happy when things go well, but to make preparations if things don’t work out. Random misfortune is the reason why people have car insurance, health insurance, home insurance, money put off to the side, home security systems, natural disaster preparations, etc. I don’t think marriage should be any different. If I do get married, I would probably consider putting a % of my monthly income off to the side in case a divorce does occur. And that probably would not be the only precautionary measure I will take anyway.

This is why you need to know your spouse very, very well in advance. Generally people’s baseline attitudes and behaviours don’t change. By dating for at least a year, you should be able to to be reasonably certain that you’ve seen the person at his/her best and worst, and that the worst is something you’re capable of handling. The other important fact is that you need to be clear that divorce is OFF the table. By this, I mean that the understanding HAS to be that problems can be worked and that both partners are willing to work on them.

Here’s the thing: divorces don’t just happen out of nowhere. It’s not like you get married and then all of a sudden your spouse does a 180 and the whole thing goes to pot. Not if you’re properly prepared and both are prepared to work on the marriage. I think one of the big issues in society today is the fact that people don’t seem to understand that it’s not a case of you just ride off into the sunset together and live happily ever after. There’s no perfect “happily ever after”, and any “happily ever after” you DO get takes WORK. Friends of ours told us that marriage is a verb, not a noun. We immediately began to see the truth of that. (In case I haven’t mentioned it, I’ve been married for almost 3 years.) You need to spend time rejuvenating your relationship. There’s NOTHING selfish about taking a weekend every year to go away, just the two of you, to spend time together. You also need to make sure that you’re on the same page. Obviously, you can’t predict EVERY problem that will come up. That said, if you always have an understanding that you both need to work together to solve problems, and you have an approach to conflict management set up, no problem is ever completely insurmountable.

I think the other problem here is that I don’t think you understand that love is not just a feeling. It’s a decision. There may be days when you want to strangle your spouse. (Goodness knows I have days like that.) But the thing is, you know that you would fight to the death to defend your spouse any day. You make a conscious CHOICE to pick up your cross, love your spouse, and carry on. I have generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) that went untreated for YEARS. I didn’t seek pharmacologic treatment for it until after we were married, largely because I didn’t realize the impact it had on my life. I think my husband got several years off Purgatory for dealing with me. But, he stuck by me. He always told me, “I love you unconditionally, warts and all. Love is a decision, and I CHOOSE to love you.” He and I had been having some difficulty due to my mental health issues even prior to our marriage. The night before our wedding, his best man asked if he was sure he wanted to go through with this. My husband, to his credit replied, “Yes, I’m sure.” (He meant it too.) Admittedly, we had difficulties. However, we ALWAYS came at things with the understanding that divorce was NOT an option and that we needed to work things out. Fortunately, with treatment, my anxiety is under excellent control and our marriage has improved significantly.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I get the impression that you’re afraid that if you get married your wife may not be as willing to work on issues as you are. It sounds as if you’re worried that she might turn around one day and leave you and then take you to the cleaners. This is why you NEED to make sure that you know your wife very well before it gets to that point. It will probably require that you have some very intense discussions. You NEED to make sure that BOTH of you are truly committed to the marriage and that you both understand that divorce is not on the table. I think problems become easier to manage if you recognize that divorce is not an option. You’re FORCED to work out the issues because there’s no alternative. With the exception of abuse or adultery (and abuse, at least, is usually apparent before the marriage) there’s NO reason to get divorced, as long as both of you are on the same page about working out your issues. “Random misfortune” doesn’t dissolve marriages. You don’t just “find yourself” in a divorce situation.

 

[Xantippe]

His_Helpmeet said:

“By this, I mean that the understanding HAS to be that problems can be worked and that both partners are willing to work on them.”

Yes–there are so many people (male and female) who simply refuse to go to marriage counseling or even discuss disagreements. And then they wonder why their spouses divorce them…

“Here’s the thing: divorces don’t just happen out of nowhere. It’s not like you get married and then all of a sudden your spouse does a 180 and the whole thing goes to pot.”

Exactly.

Anybody who thinks that 1) didn’t know their spouse well at all and/or 2) wasn’t paying attention.

Divorce is not a random event, which is what the Men’s Rights babies view it as.

Since it is not a random event, it is possible to improve one’s chances of success in a variety of different ways.

"I think one of the big issues in society today is the fact that people don’t seem to understand that it’s not a case of you just ride off into the sunset "

Yes. A lot of people seem to believe that if you find “the one,” you’re never going to have any problems, and if you have any problems, you’re not meant to be together. Granted, I believe that courtship ought to be relatively smooth, but there are people who have amazingly unrealistic ideas of what a good marriage looks like. If someone has that sort of belief, it should be possible to discover it at some point during courtship.

You can even have practice arguments, just as a test run. Can this person fight fair? Can they problem solve, rather than just emoting and/or being abusive?

“That said, if you always have an understanding that you both need to work together to solve problems, and you have an approach to conflict management set up, no problem is ever completely insurmountable.”

Right.

 

[His_helpmeet]

His_Helpmeet said:

“By this, I mean that the understanding HAS to be that problems can be worked and that both partners are willing to work on them.”

Yes–there are so many people (male and female) who simply refuse to go to marriage counseling or even discuss disagreements. And then they wonder why their spouses divorce them…

“Here’s the thing: divorces don’t just happen out of nowhere. It’s not like you get married and then all of a sudden your spouse does a 180 and the whole thing goes to pot.”

Exactly.

Anybody who thinks that 1) didn’t know their spouse well at all and/or 2) wasn’t paying attention.

Divorce is not a random event, which is what the Men’s Rights babies view it as.

Since it is not a random event, it is possible to improve one’s chances of success in a variety of different ways.

"I think one of the big issues in society today is the fact that people don’t seem to understand that it’s not a case of you just ride off into the sunset "

Yes. A lot of people seem to believe that if you find “the one,” you’re never going to have any problems, and if you have any problems, you’re not meant to be together. Granted, I believe that courtship ought to be relatively smooth, but there are people who have amazingly unrealistic ideas of what a good marriage looks like. If someone has that sort of belief, it should be possible to discover it at some point during courtship.

You can even have practice arguments, just as a test run. Can this person fight fair? Can they problem solve, rather than just emoting and/or being abusive?

“That said, if you always have an understanding that you both need to work together to solve problems, and you have an approach to conflict management set up, no problem is ever completely insurmountable.”

Right.

I’ve known a number of couples who are divorced (my husband is divorced from his first wife). I wasn’t privy to the details of the marital breakdown for all of them, but I was privy to the details for a few. I heard a few common refrains: “we got married because we had to,” “we were young,” “we knew from the start that we shouldn’t have gotten married”, “we weren’t together that long before we got married”. ALL of these are things that are indicative of a potential disaster down the road. As I mentioned before, and as Xantippe pointed out, you don’t just “find yourself” in a divorce situation. The reason that we have insurance for things such as houses and vehicles is because acts of God can happen, and so can completely random things. You can’t predict the weather. You can’t be 100% certain that the guy driving next to you hasn’t suddenly had, or isn’t going to have, a massive stroke that will cause him to lose control of his vehicle. You can, however, choose a spouse WISELY.

 

[rafael76]

The question here is whether it is ok to have only a religious ceremony without a contract. Well, it depends on where you live and where you intend to live. In some countries, the state will not recognize any religious wedding and in the eyes of the law you would not be married. If you were to die, your spouse would be left without many legal rights which are normally associated with marriage. Also, in case of health problems, you might not be allowed access to your spouse (because you would not be legally married). In many places it could also mean that the father would not be the legal father of the children. In other countries it would be absolutely unproblematic as the church wedding would simply be recognized by the state. But even if this is the case, you might want to think about whether other countries consider this to be a valid marriage.
Personally, I believe that marriage is something between husband, wife and God. But I also have a responsibility towards my future wife and eventual children. In my home country, this responsibility would need to be served by also having a ceremony with the relevant worldly authorities. If I were to live somewhere else, that would not be an issue.
Therefore you should look at the laws in your jurisdiction.
Obviously, a legal contract should not even be an issue. If one thinks about divorce already before getting married should think again.

 

[AussieTrish]

I don’t see that divorce is necessarily unfair to one party or the other.

When one of my sons divorced, the couple simply divided money and assets down the middle, the son chose to live with his Dad and the boy’s mother always shared expenses.

Another son raised his children alone, the mother was legally supposed to help with support but my son, knowing she could never guide her own life aright, chose to tell her not to feel obliged to pay anything. He was realistic, without resentment, in any case at time of separation, neither he nor the children’s mother possessed much. He plied his trade at a normal level and was able to raise his children with good education and basic needs. He didn’t look over his shoulder, he was happy to do right by his children from his own efforts.

Any divorces in my wider family, in both cases the husband walked off with everything and the two wronged wives had to begin again, which they did with courage and without resentment. My sisters had no interest in fighting their cases in court. They both received annulments and their second husbands are all they could wish for and both couples have since enjoyed many years of happy second Catholic marriages.

My own marriage has lasted as did my parents’ and most of our family.

The OP seems to imagine that all? men are the victims in divorce.
I have known of a good number of fairly divided assets in divorces.
Its sad that the OP’s experiences have been damaging.
If he chooses not to marry, I hope he has a rewarding life.
He possibly needs a lot of healing before marrying, as resentment and fear can damage and undermine even relationships that might have succeeded.

Religious marriage without legal contract won’t solve any issues. Religious marriage is still a contract. Catholics divorcing from a religious contract, even if it were possible not to have a civil contract, would still face the obligations of a marriage that cannot be ended without annulments that are difficult to obtain, and both parents still have a moral and financial responsibility to any children.

Are you perhaps thinking of commitment ceremonies? In the united States Marriage officiants main responsibility is to witness the consent of the intended spouses and to ensure the legal formalities so that the validity of the marriage or civil union is ensured. Unlike wedding and civil union ceremonies, there is no legal filing of paperwork required for commitment ceremonies. However aren’t these likely to be unfair to deserted partners and children, and leave them without recourse? This is not the course any Catholic can take.

 

[Luvz2travel]

There’s always the prenup agreement option if they are so worried about being taken for a ride. Frankly I wouldn’t want to marry a man who was so bitter against women he was already worried about and more concerned with his “money or possessions”. In that case I would assume he’s making an idol of his earthly possessions which as christians we are called not to do. If I had a house fire and lost everything the one thing I would worry over would my cats. If my cats and me were ok I’d call it a good day. My neighbors had a house fire recently and lost everything and it’s made me think of what is really important. Possessions can be replaced but people can’t be and pets are more important than possessions in my book.

 

[His_helpmeet]

There’s always the prenup agreement option if they are so worried about being taken for a ride. Frankly I wouldn’t want to marry a man who was so bitter against women he was already worried about and more concerned with his “money or possessions”. In that case I would assume he’s making an idol of his earthly possessions which as christians we are called not to do. If I had a house fire and lost everything the one thing I would worry over would my cats. If my cats and me were ok I’d call it a good day. My neighbors had a house fire recently and lost everything and it’s made me think of what is really important. Possessions can be replaced but people can’t be and pets are more important than possessions in my book.

The Church generally forbids prenups because they are crafted with the intention of a “just in case we divorce” scenario. You’re putting divorce as an option on the table. This could seriously jeopardize the validity of the marriage as it could mean that you don’t intend to be married forever.

Again, you don’t just “find yourself” in a divorce situation. BOTH of you MUST agree from the start that divorce is NOT an option that’s on the table. (I’m speaking of marriages where there is NO abuse, and where there is NO intention for one spouse to leave the other.) This means that there’s no “cop-out” - you HAVE to sort out problems.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

The Church generally forbids prenups because they are crafted with the intention of a “just in case we divorce” scenario. You’re putting divorce as an option on the table. This could seriously jeopardize the validity of the marriage as it could mean that you don’t intend to be married forever.

It depends what the pre-nups are for. They are allowed in certain circumstances, such as to protect the interests of one’s children if one remarries. They wouldn’t be permitted if they were oriented specifically between the husband and wife.

 

[His_helpmeet]

It depends what the pre-nups are for. They are allowed in certain circumstances, such as to protect the interests of one’s children if one remarries. They wouldn’t be permitted if they were oriented specifically between the husband and wife.

I don’t see how you couldn’t put this in a will, though, or as an agreement between the spouses. For example, DH has a daughter (DSD) from his first marriage (declared invalid). We currently own 2 houses: our own and the one DH bought before we married (we lived there until late last year; legally DH owns it on his own), which is now rented by FIL. We decided that in the event that DH died while we still owned the second house, it would be given to DSD (we don’t have other children presently) and would become her inheritance. We own the second house jointly and we agreed that I would keep that, so I would have somewhere to live.

 

[Xantippe]

Presumably a trust would also work.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I don’t see how you couldn’t put this in a will, though, or as an agreement between the spouses.

The point is not that it may be handled in a different way, but rather that the Catholic Church does not necessarily exclude all prenuptial agreements.