Lover of Wisdom recently asked my opinion about pre-nups and what the evangelical female consensus is about them…so, Lover of Wisdom, this one’s for you.
Prenups are not a topic that comes up often when I’ve talked with other single Christian women about getting married, but my general feeling is that most single, conservative Christian women do not want a prenup for themselves. They consider prenups an insult to their loyalty and devotion and a sign of no confidence on the man’s part. A man who wants a prenup is a man who believes the union cannot last, may already be looking for a way out, and/or is more interested in himself than in his future bride’s well-being. The average Christian woman does not see a prenup as protection for the man – or for herself.
That said, I think the average single Christian woman might be more tolerant of a prenup if there were a very large disparity of wealth between the future bride and groom. In most marriages, a bazillionaire is not marrying a pauper, as people tend to marry those of similar socioeconomic background – and in doing so, end up marrying someone with a similar attitude toward money (both the making of and management of it), which reduces the likelihood that one sees the other as a love ’em-and-leave ’em get-rich-quick scheme. Additionally, most people tend to marry relatively young, which means that typically neither bride nor groom is at a point in their career where they’re making scads of dough. If both bride and groom are, say, 30 or younger, there’s usually not much of anything to protect.
However, when a very rich person is marrying a very…not-rich person, all sorts of flags of suspicion immediately go up. Since it is not common for people of very disparate economic status to meet and socialize, outsiders start to wonder how they met…why they met…what he sees in her…what she sees in him. The flags go up even faster and harder if the poorer party shows unfavorable signs of being from a lower economic class, such as in manner of dress and comportment. In this sort of case, I think even a church girl would recommend that the richer party get a prenup (if that person is dead set on marrying someone who seems like a bad deal to begin with).
As for myself, I don’t like the idea of a prenup for the reasons stated above. I think it’s bad form for a marriage, which is supposed to be the melding of two lives into one, to start off with each party on opposite sides of a table and armed with lawyers who are seeking the best deal for their clients. (Each party to a prenup should have his or her own lawyer. I would never recommend to any couple to have the same attorney craft their prenup. Hello, conflict of interest. No, besotted couple, your love is not greater than the legal system.) That said, I am not opposed to prenups in principle. If a couple want to have a “contingency plan” in place, that’s their business. In cases of large, inherited wealth, I can even see why anxious parents might urge their son or daughter to get one. But in general, I would counsel any couple wanting a prenup to examine hard their motivations for and expectations about marriage and commitment.
Haley's Halo 
Modern marriage is a tripartite contract between man, woman and state. It is already a prenup, albeit an un-negotiated one.
Biblical marriage is a tripartite contract between man, woman and God, initiated by sexual union with or without the recognition of a wedding.
The reasons you give for not liking prenups apply equally to modern marriage. So are you willing to forego a marriage license, and otherwise waive your rights to state intervention?
Honestly, given the current trends of what the State is allowing to define as marriage and what that means for churches and other faiths, I think it’s going to get to that point where the only way religions will be able to practice their faith freely is by not obtaining approval from the State.
I agree with both the above posters. I think Christian women need to get used to the idea of a prenuptial, or having a purely church approved marriage. I for one will never get a marriage license in this country. Because as Mr. Dantes stated above, it is a contract with the state as well. And the legal form of marriage in this country has not been in line with the Biblical one since before I was born.
No woman is so pretty or special or trustworthy that she will make me forget the 50% divorce rate and the financial and child custody injustice machine the state uses to grind up the male half of any married couple. So either we cut out the authority and involvement of the state, or we use it’s own tools against it, and craft a prenup that limits either party’s options so that they cannot use the courts against each other by agreeing ahead of time on the bounds of their marriage instead of blindly inheriting the secular state’s dictates on their union.
Most importantly though, Scripture actually calls for such an approach! In 1 Corinthians 6:1-5 Paul tells the church to settle disputes inside the church, and to not involve the laws of the unrighteous. Both women and men need to start protecting themselves by either writing a prenup that establishes their marriage according to the Biblical way by agreeing in legal form to limit the state’s involvement, or simply leave out the laws of the unbelievers altogether.
Either that or the church can continue to enjoy the wonderful divorce rates, child custody battles, financial bickering, and so on of the secular world.
Marriage is contract, essentially, to not have contracts between you. That being said, a separation agreement is what saved my hide when my ex had an affair; essentially a post-nup. If I could have a pre-nup for my next marriage that basically restated the assumptions of what “marriage” meant in law some thirty years ago or so (no divorce except for abuse, adultery, etc.) that would be golden. It would be like getting married, right?
Marriage is a contract, essentially, to not have contracts between you. That being said, a separation agreement is what saved my hide when my ex had an affair; essentially a post-nup. If I could have a pre-nup for my next marriage that basically restated the assumptions of what “marriage” meant in law some thirty years ago or so (no divorce except for abuse, adultery, etc.) that would be golden. It would be like getting married, right?
Not having legal representation at a legally binding contract signing is foolish. Usually neither man or woman really understand the legal agreement they are making. Marriage and Divorce Law is really very complicated and there’s not really much of a cliffs notes handout for it before you sign on the dotted line.
I don’t mean to discount the Christian viewpoint and intent for marriage, but the actual agreement made is defined by the State Law you’re married in. Church attendance or not makes no impact whatsoever on how the courts will interpret your agreement, or failure to maintain your agreement.
You can marry a starry eyed Christian girl and she can turn more vicious than can be imagined during a divorce process.
Personally I like the idea of a pre-nup that better defines “at fault” relationship breakdown and resolution.
“Personally I like the idea of a pre-nup that better defines “at fault” relationship breakdown and resolution.”
Me too; particularly when the woman essentially already has a pre-nup in the form of legal precedence.
I used to think the same way, but listen to what you’re saying.
“A man who wants a prenup is a man who believes the union cannot last, may already be looking for a way out, and/or is more interested in himself than in his future bride’s well-being…That said, I think the average single Christian woman might be more tolerant of a prenup if there were a very large disparity of wealth between the future bride and groom.”
I’m not trying to twist your words, but it sure does seem like you’re saying that if he’s rich enough, then it can be overlooked…much like other inconveniences.
What do you think is a good social mechanism for discouraging divorce? Community shame is gone even/especially within the church; high alimonies and child-support are enforced by armed men; pre-nups are a signal of bad faith…what is your suggestion?
Thanks for the shout-out, Haley. You say:
“In cases of large, inherited wealth, I can even see why anxious parents might urge their son or daughter to get one. But in general, I would counsel any couple wanting a prenup to examine hard their motivations for and expectations about marriage and commitment.”
I think this concern is greatly overlooked. I’ve seen the problems that come when someone in a relationship inherit great wealth. I would design a prenup that guarantee that the next generation would inherit the wealth once their time comes, instead of one of the parents potentially getting it if a spouse dies. The spouse shouldn’t have a right to that money and property.
What’s funny is that I don’t even consider what you take to be issues:
“They consider prenups an insult to their loyalty and devotion and a sign of no confidence on the man’s part. A man who wants a prenup is a man who believes the union cannot last, may already be looking for a way out, and/or is more interested in himself than in his future bride’s well-being. The average Christian woman does not see a prenup as protection for the man – or for herself.”
If my fiance wanted a prenup, I’d be happy to sign it, considering that the thoughts of questionable loyalty, devotion, or that she is entering the marriage believing it might fail wouldn’t enter my mind. It just seems rational to do.
I think Christian women need to get used to the idea of a prenuptial, or having a purely church approved marriage.
I don’t think most pastors, at least those from conservative corners of Christianity, will “marry” two people who are not seeking to be recognized as married under the law. Why would a pastor who is seeking to follow God preside over the union of two people whom the law will identify as unmarried? As Christians we are to abide by the law, unless that law requires us to disobey God. Since that standard is not met in the current legal regime, Christians ought to marry under the law, not outside of it.
That said, if a couple wish to draw up a legal agreement proscribing grounds for divorce, they are certainly entitled to do so.
I also think it’s worth noting that (as far as I can tell) nowhere in the Bible is there a command to marry only in a private religious ceremony. It seems to be taken for granted that people married according to the custom of where and when they lived, which would almost assuredly include some sort of legal recognition by the society in which they lived.
Overall, I think your reasoning is faulty. What happens to the union if the couple decide not to attend the church that married them anymore? What if one or both decide to become atheists? Are they still married? If they leave the church and then decide to split up, how can they divorce? Do they get to decide for themselves? What if one partner falls in love with someone else and legally weds that person? Has that spouse committed bigamy? For any society to function properly, there has to be one standard for marriage to which everyone adheres. Otherwise you just open the door for chaos.
If there is a great enough wealth disparity between the bride and groom, other factors come into play that typically do not in more economically equitable unions. Some women will put their foot down and refuse to sign a prenup under any condition, even if she were $10 million in debt and he were a multi-billionaire. Others would understand the desire to protect substantial finances, especially if the desire for a prenup originated not with the future spouse but with his or her parents. There isn’t a bright-line test.
Generally speaking, people trust others who are like them. Differences open the door for doubt and mistrust. Since great economic disparity has always been a reason for mistrust, I think people are more tolerant of protective actions when it comes to money. But again, I don’t think there is a one-size-fits-all model for women and their feelings about this.
I think the best social mechanism for discouraging divorce is for parents to be married and stay married. Also, parents should teach their children that while marriage can be wonderful, it is not always going to feel wonderful and that it is important to honor that commitment even when you don’t feel like it. But I really think that parental modeling is the strongest and most effective advertisement for marriage for the next generation. Getting your kids into an environment where other kids have married parents is important, too, because then you have peer reinforcement.
Haley, you’re correct that most pastors will not accept a Leviathan-free marriage. That is because most people are cowardly, unreflective and most of all, idiots.
Leviathan marriage violates God’s law by eviscerating the husband’s authority. The wife has an arbitrary veto sweetened by 50% of assets and child custody. Can you spell “temptation”?
Leviathan further violates God’s laws by enforcing these assets transfers and child-theft at gunpoint. If you don’t consider indentured servitude for 18 years and stealing children to be sufficiently violative, you might also support a marriage license that included a 50% chance of legally mandatory prison shower rapes, determined by lottery.
Your implication that the Bible remains silent on legal marriage forms is disengenuous. The Pentateuch, a society designed by God, is full of pertinent text. Even Jesus weighed in on marriage, saying divorce was illegitimate.
I’m disappointed you have failed to distinguish between the legal and the moral, and placed utterly superficial bureaucratic appearances (marital status on pieces of paper somewhere) above the tremendous damage to the real substance of the relationship.
So why do you think marriage law should follow the model of “where and when [you] live?” In light of all the Biblical statements on marriage that do NOT include “legal recognition” as a priority, why is it such a priority to you?
Your final paragraph displays the mentality of a serf unable to function outside the suffocating swaddling of the Nanny State. How did less bureaucratic ages ever manage? What licentious chaos must have reigned prior to the passage of the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act in 1923 by the Federal Government!
For those seeking a cogent argument against marriage licenses, go here: http://www.mercyseat.net/BROCHURES/marriagelicense.htm
That’s because you think like a m-a-n…
Women process subtext, not text. If you say, “y=x^2”, a woman hears “y=x”. Lol.
If you say, “I want a prenup,” she hears, “I’m inserting logical entities into our emotional relationship because I don’t love you, and simultaneously diminishing your status as a fully beloved and trusted princess.”
If I HAD to get a prenup, here’s how I’d do it while maintaining hand:
1. Delay the marriage license until after wedding nuptials with appropriate Biblical vows. Because God’s law comes first, baby.
2. Get her interested and collaborating with you on Biblical marriage principles.
3. Prior to getting the marriage license, educate her on the differences between Leviathan’s law and God’s law.
4. Together draft a covenantal prenup that amends the default Leviathan marriage contract.
5. Realize that this amendment will not be fully enforced, so it was a mostly pointless gesture.
This has the advantage of waiting to negotiate the legal details until after she’s under your sexual thrall and intellectual mentorship.
Haley: I’m calling you on bull***pucky. How do you derive your understanding of “the law” — how? It is not against man’s law in the U.S. to hold yourselves out as a couple outside of the State’s recognition. Those conservative pastors don’t have to worry about breaking the law, at all, for having a solemnization ceremony that does not involve a license.. The law will come for them for other things, perhaps in some jurisdictions, someday, for not marrying gays. (Not that I think such would stand .. but I do think such will be tried in a place or two to test the waters). And when did I get any biblical authority to worry about Elder so and so and the tingling upset in his colon? *When and where* ? What did Elder (or pastor) so and so do about the divorce mess in his church; so that he might have moral authority in my eyes to “marry” me and a bride, anyway? Post Christian america is more hedonistic in some ways than ancient Rome or Corinth. You could at least get into trouble with the authorities in some cases for doing certain immoral things. In US culture you can’t, unless she decides after the fact she didn’t want it anyway.
Cane said: >> Me too; particularly when the woman essentially already has a pre-nup in the form of legal precedence.<<
That's one of the more insightful things I've read all week.
Haley says: “For any society to function properly, there has to be one standard for marriage to which everyone adheres. Otherwise you just open the door for chaos.”
We are in Chaos, and having the state try to stem the chaotic tides won’t work, since they are part of the problem. The salt is not salty enough to influence the state.
If we start with the assumption that legal recognition is good, then we have to explain why. If we start with the assumption that legal recognition is required, then we have to explain why.
At the end of the day, I think many pastors want the state to have literal and figurative guns pointed at the men because they recognize, deep down, that they don’t know how to mold men into such creatures that they can withstand on the domestic level the chaos of a woman’s soul, especially when she is acting on the instincts of her old nature vs. her new nature. They correctly intuit that on many levels it’s up to the man in many respects to take the lead in making things work; but they don’t want to admit that it take two to tango instead of three.
You don’t think there is economic disparity between a professional/executive earning $100k+ per year and an elementary school teacher? Furthermore, standard-of-living wise, a 50% divorce settlement would hit him way harder than a billionaire.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with a fair prenup counteracting the state’s bias against men.
As others have already touched upon, when you marry, you are already “buying into” a legal contract between yourself, your spouse, and the state. And that legal contract, currently, is stacked against men, full stop. I think in that context for a woman to consider a pre-nup to be a sign of no-confidence is in itself a red flag for me, personally — it means she likes the current legal regime just fine, which is problematic to me, and also telling.
Having said that, as a practical matter, there isn’t that much utility to a pre-nup unless you have significant pre-marital assets that you want to keep separate from distribution upon divorce. That’s the one aspect of pre-nups that is most likely to be enforced by the family court, provided that you can demonstrate that full disclosure of all assets was made at the time the pre-nup was signed. However, even in these cases, pre-nups can be avoided by family courts (that is, not enforced at all) if they are entered into too close to the marriage, or, in some states, even at any point after the date of the marriage has been set, on the ground of having been entered into “under duress”:.
The rest of the family law apparatus that tends to work against men — the custody presumptions, the CS calculations and enforcement mechanism, the lack of accountability for blocking visitation, and so on — are generally not variable by a pre-nup, in the sense that in most states, family courts won’t enforce an agreement about these things unless they think that the agreement is also in the best interests of the child (which normally means the best interests of the mother of the child) — so it’s worth a try, but probably won’t get enforced. Similarly, some states will allow you to regulate the reasons for seeking a divorce, or to waive certain rights if you seek a divorce for certain reasons and not others, and some states will enforce that, while others won’t.
In all, as a practical matter, for most average people, pre-nups aren’t that helpful. However, sussing out the attitude of your prospective wife about pre-nups *is* helpful, because it also susses out her attitude about family law in general, which is a key concept to understand before marrying someone.
You fundamentally misunderstand me. Allow me to clarify. What I am advocating does not violate the law in any way. There is no law that states two people living or sleeping together must be married. So, to Christian people could write up a contract of their own design, one that would properly match the Bible’s plan for marriage, and have it ratified by the courts as a legally binding contract or civil union. This contract would become a marriage once the oaths are made before God. Scripture reads, “what God has joined” not “what legal documents have joined” The marriage is made by God’s authority, the state’s authority just covers the earthly stuff: possessions and legal standing for ownership. I am advocating that if you want a marriage license, get a prenup to protect your marriage. If you got the guts, just go for a civil union or contract that covers all rights of attorney and so on and skip the secular marriage license.
I also want to address a few of your questions directly.
-What happens to the union if the couple decide not to attend the church that married them anymore?
Irrelevant. A change in pastor and friends is not an abandonment of God. The oath was with Him, not the pastor.
-If they leave the church and then decide to split up, how can they divorce?
The same way every one gets a divorce, say “I want a divorce.” Only, in this scenario, the proceedings for such a thing would be mapped out in the contract, a contract created by the parties involved to their own satisfaction, instead of by a third party, i.e. the state.
-What if one partner falls in love with someone else and legally weds that person? Has that spouse committed bigamy?
According to the Biblical definition, that would be adultery, and grounds for divorce. Again, the prenup/contract would cover the procedure for divorce.
-For any society to function properly, there has to be one standard for marriage to which everyone adheres. Otherwise you just open the door for chaos.
It is too late for that; we are already there.
I fully acknowledge that this proposal is not the best case scenario. Best case, the law would work and Churches would enjoy a healthier marriages and families than the non-believing citizen. Currently though, the statics for divorce and broken families are all to similar between the groups. Non-Christian men can see the writing on the wall and are unwilling to put their head in the noose and risk legal and financial purgatory. Christian men have the conundrum of being required to marry if they want to be with a woman. So the choices for a man become: a pure life with no sex and no marriage; an immoral life with sex but no marriage; or a pure life with sex and marriage, and the 50% chance that you will lose the right to see your kids whenever you wish, lose half of your possessions, “gain” half of her debt, face a level of rejection never experienced before, suffer the indignities of the courts digging into your life, and fall into immorality if you ever marry again according to Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:9. I guarantee you most men are choosing the middle option, likely even within the church. If we want to save the marriages of the Church, we need to change that third choice into a more attractive option.
I agree that pre-nups aren’t that useful, for the issues that the other commentators are complaining about. I would add that not getting married, as some suggest, will not increase a man’s rights with respect to issues of custody, visitation etc. And contracts with God are fine, but He rarely shows up to enforce His rights.
I have to say, however, that I can’t imagine sussing out my wife’s views on family law: I don’t have any views on family law, and I can’t imagine that my wife does either. And we’re both lawyers. Do most people have views on these issues? It seems like a loser-ish concern, likely to engage either (i) men who spend their time thinking about relationships, which is a girl activity, or (ii) Peter, Peter, Pumpkin Eater, who was rather a loser.
I guess that’s fine if you like signing onto legal regimes without knowing what they provide. I can’t say I did it any differently when I got married, but I learned all about the family law system the hard way (and, no, I didn’t get completely screwed in my divorce, but my options were severely limited by the practice of the family law courts).
I don’t think there is anything wrong with a fair prenup counteracting the state’s bias against men.
I didn’t say there was.
However, sussing out the attitude of your prospective wife about pre-nups *is* helpful, because it also susses out her attitude about family law in general, which is a key concept to understand before marrying someone.
I don’t think that most never-married women who primarily come from two-parent families – which is generally who you’re dealing with if you marry a young, conservative Christian woman – think very much about family law prior to getting married. They consider marriage a once-for-life deal; as a result, having the man of their dreams wanting them to sign a prenup is often interpreted as planning for their inevitable demise. For young girls with stars in their eyes (as well as those with staunchly traditional values), it is a soulcrusher.
Haley: you keep moving the goalposts, excuse me.
“never-married women [and men] who primarily come from two-parent families”
That would cover my wife and me, and most of the children we grew up with. Really, pre-nups are addressing a problem we have never experienced.
Although I should add, we grew up in an upper-middle-class WASP world, not an evangelical world.
In practical terms, marriage of young people involves merging debts, not net assets.
I agree with Haley, that a prenuptial is a statement of lack of faith in the union,and the first step toward divorce. 1) prior financial dependents 2). Enormous differences in net worth might be exceptions.
Women’s opinions about pre-nups are very telling. They work against you all. That is why men are the ones who generally want them.
But I agree that they are generally worthless. Once men get married, they are screwed, under the law. The solution for men is not to marry. At least not under the current legal regime.
And that is me, Novaseeker, just so I am not accused of sock-puppeting. I am logged into a different email account so it defaults to that name for posting.
“For young girls with stars in their eyes (as well as those with staunchly traditional values), it is an ego-crusher.”
Oops! Fixed that typo for ya.
But the recent comments are right: our culture is so pathetic that a pre-nip is probably next to useless. The best solution I’ve found is…nothing. There is no guarantor of my wife’s affections. I think the battles are lost in the short game: men let the small things slide (watching Oprah; gossiping with her friends; choosing the other dress from the one he said he liked); never realizing that a perpetual fight about the little things keeps her too occupied to fight about the big things (why are we together?).
It probably helps to be Blue-blood WASPs.
Leaving aside any of the logistical issues, the pre-nuptial agreements aren’t even on the guy’s radar. If they’re from a stable two-parent family, they’ve never come into contact with family law, and while their friends from divorced families might have, it would only be from the limited understanding and interests of the child who is getting fought over, not any of the issues between the adults.
Even the parents of out hypothetical young man probably don’t have any experience in the area unless they’re lawyers or social workers. They’d probably be just as confused as the starry-eyed girl.
Good point by Haley and you. Not that the MRA/MGTOW/game-o-sphere doesn’t have valid insights, but their denizens tend to forget that they’re in something of an echo chamber. Most people not only never think about these issues, they’re not even aware that these issues exist at all.
That’s true, but the interesting thing is that the divorce rate among Christians in general is not significantly lower than in the general population. The lower divorce rate appears to be associated with being upper middle class more than anything else. I agree that most people don’t know anything about family law until they actually need to — that’s true. It’s also one of the reasons why we have the family law we do — no-one focuses on it (other than the women’s groups).
I wish I could agree with you Brett. When I married — both professional, both active in the church — we didn’t need no prenup. We had little.
Over 20 years things got difficult and the marraige ended. I’m now single, established in my profession (as she is) and a solo dad.
The resources that I have from that marraige are going to be needed so I can help my boys through college or an apprenticeship. (They are math nerds, hence college).
If someone arrives, I’m open. I would love to contract out of the state and have a reformed base marraige and a fair property settlement for everyone (at my age, most non married women are widowed or divorced).
But the Family Court is jealous of its monopoly on these issues. If it breaks down, it will go to court, under secular rules.
I would strongly advise contracting out of the state whenever possible. I would strongly advise marrying in the church and not telling the state (who will consider you in a ‘civil union’ if you live together for more than X months.
But the civil authority will do what they choose. Regardless of the sincerity of your beliefs or the correctness of your theology.
Gasp. SPhuhhhh!! Pre-nups are straight from the pits of hell. I would not marry a man who did not trust his OWN judgment about me (and my intentions to, or not to, abscond with his funds) enough not to have a contract stating so. If he trusted me, I would take the prenup as a sign that he did not trust his own fidelity. Also a great reason not to marry him.
If I had money? I would hide in in an offshore account or bury it in the backyard before I would ask my husband to sign something stating he wouldn’t take it. Way to start off planning to fail. Better to trust in God and deal with the fallout knowing you can continue to trust in Him (and hopefully, him who follows Him) no matter what.
” I would hide in in an offshore account or bury it in the backyard ”
True. In a world not ruled by ego, prenups would be a good idea.
The only pre-nup that would be useful would be one encouraging fidelity.
E.g. He/She who cheats, gets nothing. Winner takes all. Winner being the one who proves faithful.
But I’m going with the no-prenup plan in general. Convenient to be poor, isn’t it?
…to nup or not to nup…..
That’s the question