Deebo: Oh, *that* bike. Didn't know you wanted it back, homie. It's right here. Follow me, homie.
Red: Yeah, it's just like it's both of ours... we just keep it down at my house. .
- Deebo and Red - "Friday"
Recently, an acquaintance of mines and I were discussing their more than likely upcoming nuptials. They have been dating this person for awhile and the direction of their relationship is headed towards marriage. The converversation shifted to discuss whether or not a prenuptial agreement should be put into place.
Background on the friend: Came from very very humble beginnings, to say the least. They value what they have, (as we all should). Sidebar: I know many people who value what they have, but I also know that some of these same folks suffer from delusions of grandeur. But I believe that is attached to traumatic childhood experiences, that often gets in the way of LIFE, because they have not chosen to overcome it, so they compensate with what they have, sometimes ad nauseum. But okay, back to the friend. The person they are considering marrying has a stable job (no home, but hey this is Cali, that's neither here nor there), very loving and caring, and very dedicated to the relationship. Both of them have children that they support.
(By the way, I am purposely leaving this gender neutral in order to keep this as objective as possible).
With that said, there are different sides to the pre-nuptial agreement debate:
The "Just in Case" Crowd: With 50 percent of marriages ending in divorce, and with laws governing divorce varying from state to state, which generally have some guidelines regarding community property. According to Wikipedia, community property dictates that most property acquired during the marriage (except for gifts or inheritances) is owned jointly by both spouses and is divided upon divorce, annulment, or death. And this, ladies and gentleman is the reason why people like Juanita Jordan, Ivana Trump, and yes, even K-Fed make out handsomely during a divorce. It is based upon what was earned during the time of the marital relationship. People believe that if in fact the fairy tale turns into a fairy hell, then there are contractual guidelines that will assist with the subsequent dissolution of the relationship. Furthermore, if in fact, one or the other couple becomes more financially profitable during this period, then, again, motions are set in place to adequately resolve any issues that may come up.
The "For Better or for Worse" Crowd: The believe that you are setting up your marriage on a conditional basis is often tantamount to blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Many folks believe that it is then, that you are watering down your vows to nothing more than a legal mantra of gobbledygook that you have to proceed with in order to make it official. Believing that you are putting your personal treasures ahead of your feelings, the conditional aspects of what one considers a binding love affair can be lauded as nothing more as say, a "bidness" arrangement. And, to the argument that if a person becomes more financially profitable during the relationship, then so be it. It was during the relationship, marriage is a two partner, one way street, and why not, indeed, share in the "Better" factor of the relationship?
Both sides have valid arguments. Both sides, also, have valid flaws (depending on your interpretation or position).
What are your thoughts on Pre-Nup's? Agree, disagree, or on the fence?