Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

If you ain't no punk holler "we want pre-nup!"

Options
13567

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    LadyAthame wrote: »
    I agree THAT is a perfectly rational explanation for having one. 'All wimmin is bitches bro' is not.
    If fairness, I don't think he was attacking women (although I could well be wrong), but feminism. And last time I checked feminist is not a synonym of woman, any more than Israeli is of Jew.


  • Options
    #63
    LadyAthame
    Closed Accounts Posts: 793 ✭✭✭LadyAthame


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    If fairness, I don't think he was attacking women (although I could well be wrong), but feminism. And last time I checked feminist is not a synonym of woman, any more than Israeli is of Jew.
    He was.


  • Options
    #64
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    LadyAthame wrote: »
    He was.
    OK. I'll take your word for it, largely because I'm far to lazy to go over his posts ;)


  • Options
    #65
    LadyAthame
    Closed Accounts Posts: 793 ✭✭✭LadyAthame


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    OK. I'll take your word for it, largely because I'm far to lazy to go over his posts ;)
    Don't worry I am listening to my neighbour play Spanish guitar I am in the zone too!;)


  • Options
    #66
    conorhal
    Registered Users Posts: 6,983 ✭✭✭conorhal


    facing_west wrote: »
    its not a level pitch of suspicion , male concern is well grounded as the institutions of the state are firmly biased against men when it comes to sharing out assets , assets the man often entirely owned prior to marriage

    women are actively encouraged by society and the state to grab all they can in the event of a break up

    Perhaps there needs to be some middle ground in this debate.If a marriage ends after 5 years it seems like neiteher party has invested much in each other or contributed much to their joint assests, but after 10 or 20 years together that's a different story. I think a pre-nump should have an expiry date.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    conorhal wrote: »
    Perhaps there needs to be some middle ground in this debate.If a marriage ends after 5 years it seems like neiteher party has invested much in each other or contributed much to their joint assests, but after 10 or 20 years together that's a different story. I think a pre-nump should have an expiry date.

    Duration is always a factor. IF you are married for two years, you don't have much of a case.


  • Options
    #68
    Lt J.R. Bell
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 679 ✭✭✭Lt J.R. Bell


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Well anyone would be stupid to rush into marriage then surely without really getting to know the person first, and if you're bringing material assets into the marriage, then you're making certain vows, and those vows have to mean something. Pre-nup agreements totally devalue the meaning of these vows, leading to a situation like in the States where people simply don't take their marriages seriously because they know they always have an easy get-out clause if they have a pre-nup.





    This I actually agree with, four years is ridiculous to be waiting for a decree of divorce.

    Let's face it, plenty of people were together 4-10 years before marriage and still divorce

    Marriage is, legally, a contract. So, like all contracts one has clauses to deal with potential problems in the future and exclusion clauses to militate losseS.

    Look at Paul Mccarthy. Loads of reasons why he shouldn't have remarried. Sure, it might have been genuine but...


  • Options
    #69
    Lt J.R. Bell
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 679 ✭✭✭Lt J.R. Bell


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    Duration is always a factor. IF you are married for two years, you don't have much of a case.

    Well, depends on whether they Co habitated for years prior to it. Children also complicate things.you still have to Put a roof over their heads, and,effectively the baby mamma


  • Options
    #70
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Have to say I have no idea about pre nup - how to go about it - what is binding and what is not - or what the point of it is. I had not realised however that this means I like punk music.

    To be honest I have no idea what would happen if my relationship broke down. Not the first notion. I have been operating under the idea it will last the distance. To be honest my life is so invested in the relationship at this point if it ended I would likely end my own life and start again - by simply liquidising all assets in my name - moving into a digs - and going back to college to pursue a career entirely different to the one I am in now. A total new start and self reinvention The current me would simply die with the relationship.

    Thankfully no sign of any of that happening.


  • Options
    #71
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    While I'm of the opinion that someone who signs a pre-nup probably shouldn't be getting married at all, at the end of the day the arrangements for someone else's marriage don't affect me, so if people want this, then let at them.

    The only thing I would like to see is that any clause in a pre-nup in relation to children is voided. It should not be possible to sign away anything in this regard.

    Of course, we shouldn't even be looking at legalising pre-nups at all until we put down some laws which enforce equality in any separation/divorce process (include non-married partnerships) and give men equal rights to their children.
    But you don't get to pick and choose what the politicians work on and the farmers are terrible possessive about their land. Probably moreso than about their children.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Pumpkinseeds
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,635 ✭✭✭Pumpkinseeds


    Do the Irish courts even recognise Pre-nups? I seem to remember hearing something years ago when Pre-nups were really popular, that they aren't worth the paper they're written on. I could be very wrong, so don't hold me to it.


  • Options
    #73
    Lt J.R. Bell
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 679 ✭✭✭Lt J.R. Bell


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Have to say I have no idea about pre nup - how to go about it - what is binding and what is not - or what the point of it is. I had not realised however that this means I like punk music.

    To be honest I have no idea what would happen if my relationship broke down. Not the first notion. I have been operating under the idea it will last the distance. To be honest my life is so invested in the relationship at this point if it ended I would likely end my own life and start again - by simply liquidising all assets in my name - moving into a digs - and going back to college to pursue a career entirely different to the one I am in now. A total new start and self reinvention The current me would simply die with the relationship.

    Thankfully no sign of any of that happening.
    I think it's lyrics from Kanye West not punk music


  • Options
    #74
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,153 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Pumpkinseeds wrote: »
    Do the Irish courts even recognise Pre-nups? I seem to remember hearing something years ago when Pre-nups were really popular, that they aren't worth the paper they're written on. I could be very wrong, so don't hold me to it.

    the whole point of the thread is that some people want the courts to recognise them.


  • Options
    #75
    Lt J.R. Bell
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 679 ✭✭✭Lt J.R. Bell


    Pumpkinseeds wrote: »
    Do the Irish courts even recognise Pre-nups? I seem to remember hearing something years ago when Pre-nups were really popular, that they aren't worth the paper they're written on. I could be very wrong, so don't hold me to it.

    Not enforceable

    Constitution would have to be amended. Only area of law where the Constitution more or less spells out grounds for divorce. Ie divorce subject to proper provisions being proved

    It was historically a big reason divorce had a tough referendum history. Farmers had a genuine fear


  • Options
    #76
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Pumpkinseeds wrote: »
    Do the Irish courts even recognise Pre-nups? I seem to remember hearing something years ago when Pre-nups were really popular, that they aren't worth the paper they're written on. I could be very wrong, so don't hold me to it.
    No, they're not recognised here. And I actually think the odds of legalising them are small.

    Our constitution is annoyingly specific about marriage. And since "the State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage", I can see any attempt to allow for pre-nuptial agreements being quickly challenged as unconstitutional, and called an "attack" on marriage.

    In reality we need to remove the above article from the constitution, but that would be an uphill struggle.


  • Options
    #77
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    seamus wrote: »
    While I'm of the opinion that someone who signs a pre-nup probably shouldn't be getting married at all, at the end of the day the arrangements for someone else's marriage don't affect me, so if people want this, then let at them.

    The only thing I would like to see is that any clause in a pre-nup in relation to children is voided. It should not be possible to sign away anything in this regard.

    Of course, we shouldn't even be looking at legalising pre-nups at all until we put down some laws which enforce equality in any separation/divorce process (include non-married partnerships) and give men equal rights to their children.
    But you don't get to pick and choose what the politicians work on and the farmers are terrible possessive about their land. Probably moreso than about their children.

    Problem with equal rights is they are impractical. Let's say you have default 50/50, what if neither party wants 50/50, what if both parties only want to see the child every other weekend, what happens to the child the rest of the time?

    The mothers now have enforced responsibility, the fathers do not have enforced responsibility. They want to be able to take responsibilty when and if they feel like it, even if its 5 days a year, and call it equal rights.

    Right now, rights are just rights, not responsibility, so until we have some kind of enforced responsibility, I'm sick to the teeth of these rights town criers, now grandparents and ex boy friends can get their rights but not pay a cent in child support. This is where we are now with rights. It's a joke.

    A mother may not want to have the responsibility 365 days a year, she may only want to have it ...I dunno.... 280 days a year but she still has to have it.

    I can't see how "equality" or notions of it can be practically applied without responsibility also.


  • Options
    #78
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,153 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    seamus wrote: »
    No, they're not recognised here. And I actually think the odds of legalising them are small.

    Our constitution is annoyingly specific about marriage. And since "the State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage", I can see any attempt to allow for pre-nuptial agreements being quickly challenged as unconstitutional, and called an "attack" on marriage.

    In reality we need to remove the above article from the constitution, but that would be an uphill struggle.


    but surely divorce is also an "attack on marriage" and they seem to have legislated for that.


  • Options
    #79
    facing_west
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 20 ✭facing_west


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    Lol especially when 95% of the time no one thinks they are wrong...everyone has their reasons....

    who do you think the courts usually decide is in the wrong or at least shoulders the financial responsibilities of the other ?


  • Options
    #80
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    facing_west wrote: »
    who do you think the courts usually decide is in the wrong or at least shoulders the financial responsibilities of the other ?

    I have no idea, I know plenty of single mothers getting 10-20 a week of court ordered maintenance.

    Or nothing.

    Should I base my generalised assumptions on that?


  • Options
    #81
    facing_west
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 20 ✭facing_west


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    I have no idea, I know plenty of single mothers getting 10-20 a week of court ordered maintenance.

    Or nothing.

    Should I base my generalised assumptions on that?

    are you talking about single mothers or seperated - divorced mothers ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    but surely divorce is also an "attack on marriage" and they seem to have legislated for that.
    That's exactly why we had to have a referendum on it.

    OK, so divorce was in fact constitutionally barred, but rather than just removing the constitutional ban, it had to be explicitly permitted in the constitution. This pre-empted any challenge to divorce legislation on the basis of the state's requirement to "protect" marriage.


  • Options
    #83
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    The mothers now have enforced responsibility, the fathers do not have enforced responsibility. They want to be able to take responsibilty when and if they feel like it, even if its 5 days a year, and call it equal rights.
    Well that's why I say equality.

    Equal in all areas including access to children and obligations towards.


  • Options
    #84
    Pumpkinseeds
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,635 ✭✭✭Pumpkinseeds


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    the whole point of the thread is that some people want the courts to recognise them.

    And good morning to you too.


  • Options
    #85
    bjork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    So as well as divorcing him, it's necessary to ruin his business
    How's he going to earn the maintenance he needs to pay?


    Also should the other partner be sacked from their job if they divorce?


  • Options
    #86
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    facing_west wrote: »
    are you talking about single mothers or seperated - divorced mothers ?

    I dont know any divorced mothers. I know married and single ones, so yeah single.

    Are you suggesting they are discriminated against too by the courts?


  • Options
    #87
    Carlos Orange
    Registered Users Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭Carlos Orange


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    I dont know any divorced mothers. I know married and single ones, so yeah single.

    Are you suggesting they are discriminated against too by the courts?

    Presumably single mums don't get maintenance for themselves the way divorced mothers can.


  • Options
    #88
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,153 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    seamus wrote: »
    That's exactly why we had to have a referendum on it.

    OK, so divorce was in fact constitutionally barred, but rather than just removing the constitutional ban, it had to be explicitly permitted in the constitution. This pre-empted any challenge to divorce legislation on the basis of the state's requirement to "protect" marriage.


    but how does that lead to pre-nups being an attack on marriage?


  • Options
    #89
    ash23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,791 ✭✭✭ash23


    I was going out with a farmer and we had a hypothetical discussion about this very thing. I told him I have no interest in his farm and should we marry and divorce, I wouldn't look for half the farm but the house would either have to be sold or he would have to buy me out. It was built beside the farm so no sense in me staying in it but I wasn't walking away.
    I also said though that he couldn't expect me to be involved in the farm either.

    We lived together for a while and he was always asking me to do the books for the farm and I was always refusing. I didn't want the farm to become my job and felt it was easier to keep it all separate. But he wanted me to help with the farm but still have no claim to it.

    Now I'm with someone else and in this instance, I've more to lose than he does. I've already told him that if we marry, I'll be willing everything I have to my child until she's an adult in which case it'll be split between them......he also has a child and has said the same.

    It's messy really and though we talk about getting married, we might be better off as we are, especially when we're not planning a family.

    I don't blame farmers for wanting to protect the farm which has probably been in their family for generations. But I also can't completely dismiss the work that the other party has most likely contributed over the years too.
    It's a tough one and add to it that most of the time the family home is on the farm and it complicates things even more.


  • Options
    #90
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    ash23 wrote: »
    I was going out with a farmer and we had a hypothetical discussion about this very thing. I told him I have no interest in his farm and should we marry and divorce, I wouldn't look for half the farm but the house would either have to be sold or he would have to buy me out. It was built beside the farm so no sense in me staying in it but I wasn't walking away.
    I also said though that he couldn't expect me to be involved in the farm either.

    We lived together for a while and he was always asking me to do the books for the farm and I was always refusing. I didn't want the farm to become my job and felt it was easier to keep it all separate. But he wanted me to help with the farm but still have no claim to it.

    Now I'm with someone else and in this instance, I've more to lose than he does. I've already told him that if we marry, I'll be willing everything I have to my child until she's an adult in which case it'll be split between them......he also has a child and has said the same.

    It's messy really and though we talk about getting married, we might be better off as we are, especially when we're not planning a family.

    I don't blame farmers for wanting to protect the farm which has probably been in their family for generations. But I also can't completely dismiss the work that the other party has most likely contributed over the years too.
    It's a tough one and add to it that most of the time the family home is on the farm and it complicates things even more.

    This is really true. It's easy to forget how much input the farmer's wife has into running a farm.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Lt J.R. Bell
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 679 ✭✭✭Lt J.R. Bell


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    but surely divorce is also an "attack on marriage" and they seem to have legislated for that.

    The Constitution was amended to allow divorce.

    Divorce in this country is very restrictive on paper. 4 years, specific grounds (easy to get over, practically as there is a no fault system,it's irrelevant if Billy doesn't consent to divorce so long as there are grounds of eg irreconcilable differences) and that "proper provisions" are in place eg children are provided for. Thus, those restrictive laws are in place to protect the Institution of marriage

    As you know, divorce barely got a majority. However, I think people would be more accepting of a lower time limit for separation. Speaking if separation, that was aacknowled since 1989

    Other than that, marriage protection has been referred to in tax laws. But, hey, even in immigration ie deportation of a family member , none of these laws are absolute


Advertisement