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

edword

edword wrote: »

marriages with pre nup agreements signed by both parties are statistically more likely to end in divorce, so i think farmers are being a bit short sighted here because by ensisting on pre nups you are increasing the likelihood or odds that their wife will eventually divorce them. have to wonder what theyre hiding really, but they havent earned a reputation for being greedy for nothing

Basic statistical rule is that correlation is not causation.

NegativeCreep

It's something that you need to have cause when she leave yo ass she gon' leave with half.

seamus

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.

Its not an attack on marriage and it would be a very poor court that would come up with that interpretation. Its merely setting out an agreed position of both parties, in the spirit of being prudent and realistic should difficulties inevitably arise in the future. The agreement would only come into effect if a court accepted that the marriage was over and therefore the protection of marriage in the constitution would no longer apply.

Ideally, the issues that might invalidate one would be similar to the issues that might invalidate a will.

Lt J.R. Bell

NegativeCreep wrote: »

It's something that you need to have cause when she leave yo ass she gon' leave with half.

Word!

strobe

You don't have to think the person you are marrying is a good digger, or just after your money, or untrustworthy, or a greedy or selfish person to want a pre-nup.

Relationships tend not to end amicably as a rule. Marriages less so. There can often be a lot of hurt, and bitterness, and resentment and feelings of that nature. And when people, even good people, are feeling hurt, and bitter and resentful, they can act in ways, despite their better nature, that are not necessarily good and fair. People are flawed creatures at times.

Pre-nups would just provide a level of protection, against this unfortunate possible situation. Protection for both parties, from both being a victim of an otherwise good person acting in a not very good manor, and from being a good person being tempted to act in a not very good manor.

efb

The Corinthian wrote: »

Another one is it has to be between a man and a woman. I take it that you consider gay marriage a bad idea too?

If you cohabit with someone for five years (two if there's a child in the mix), you already will have the financial obligations foisted on you, automatically. If unmarried, you are in a severe disadvantage in terms of rights to your child (naturally only if you're a man) or taxation.

So there is more than a little coercion taking place where it comes to marriage, and that is before one considers the social coercion that's long been present.

It wasnt always it was between a man and his father in law

conorhal

NegativeCreep wrote: »

It's something that you need to have cause when she leave yo ass she gon' leave with half.

That's just a half-assed argument.......

The Corinthian

ash23 wrote: »

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.

Neither can you dismiss that she's been getting rent free accommodation on said farm either. Or that her contributions are frankly worth half of the farm, plus continued maintenance.

Thing is, as you said yourself, it's a complicated matter. The main problem, as I see it, is that these 'entitlements' are out of sync with marriage - they are based upon what marriage used to be, not what it is now. With the society they were created for, not today's society. The whole institution, especially the question of 'entitlement' needs to be looked at and reformed, otherwise slowly or surely, the institution will eventually die.

efb wrote: »

It wasnt always it was between a man and his father in law

So you do think gay marriage is a bad idea then.

Sleepy

seamus wrote: »

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

In reality we'd be best served throwing out Bunreacht na hEireann almost in it's entirety and starting afresh imo.

ghogie91

The farmers want a sturdy woman to pick shtone but dont want to give her a euro for her effort!

efb

The Corinthian wrote: »

Neither can you dismiss that she's been getting rent free accommodation on said farm either. Or that her contributions are frankly worth half of the farm, plus continued maintenance.

Thing is, as you said yourself, it's a complicated matter. The main problem, as I see it, is that these 'entitlements' are out of sync with marriage - they are based upon what marriage used to be, not what it is now. With the society they were created for, not today's society. The whole institution, especially the question of 'entitlement' needs to be looked at and reformed, otherwise slowly or surely, the institution will eventually die.

So you do think gay marriage is a bad idea then.

No. No I don't. Where did you get that from???

Lt J.R. Bell

Sleepy wrote: »

In reality we'd be best served throwing out Bunreacht na hEireann almost in it's entirety and starting afresh imo.

I always laugh listening to that comment. It's clear people don't educate themselves a little better on what it says and, more importantly, how the court interprets it

What will it be replaced with?

More or less the same provisions bar

1. the Preamble; the church special position is gone, the parents are still the people responsible for the kids subject to better State intervention (hopefully with the new amendment amendment).

2. A provision making the it more gender neutral about not obligating a certain parent from being forced to work .that proposal has been rejected at Convention, women are happy to keep it, the nonsense from feminist is grossly misplaced.what? So we should get rid of maternity leave? (rhetorical question to those who preceive the mother and home provision) divorce law can be amended. The special protection clause will likely remain in tact

3 get rid of blasphemy? Probable , but I doubt that would succeed, but can be removed by the people

4 property rights and right to good name? No chance. That would stay, there would be war if attempts were made for them to be removed

5. Get rid of the provision that says the Constitutional family is that of the married family. I would support that, but, the convention meetings say that would unlikely succeed.

6 there is no way in hell, politically, would a government would Constitutionally bind itself in the manner South Africa does with regard to social issues like ensuring no child or person is homeless or the stuff in the Childrens Convention . For all the lovely things stated in the South African Constitution, theat country fails to implement them, miserably. Same applies with those well known socio economic cases

7 insert specific court acknowledged unremunerated rights? Hmm, doubt it would happen as per point 6

People moaned about the Seanad, yet kept it. We rightly said no toothed Dail having a bigger role in tribunal like inquiries

don't forget that we can amend our Constitution,as we shall see with gay marriage, one of few countries to actually put the matter to their people. and we have our courts to give more meat on what this short document says

8 forget having notions of some nonsense about a social leftie country.Not happening

Don't blame the Constitution.blame those who fail to adhere to it.it is still a solid document

Lt J.R. Bell

ghogie91 wrote: »

The farmers want a sturdy woman to pick shtone but dont want to give her a euro for her effort!

And clean out the chicken coup and milk the cows before giving birth later that day, and, be back in the bog cutting turf the next week (oh wait the EU fascists stopped that, cutting turf decades ago)

Carlos Orange

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

What will it be replaced with?

More or less the same provisions bar

Lets at least pretend we might get rid of the supremacy of Irish if we started from scratch.

Lt J.R. Bell

psinno wrote: »

Lets at least pretend we might get rid of the supremacy of Irish if we started from scratch.

What's wrong with it? It's the national language, why should the document suffer for your inadequacies?

Oh all the bread and butter and social issues, you scrape the barrel for that nugget.lol

So, we get rid of that, how else would the Constitution be changed?

Potatoeman

The Corinthian wrote: »

Neither can you dismiss that she's been getting rent free accommodation on said farm either. Or that her contributions are frankly worth half of the farm, plus continued maintenance.

Thing is, as you said yourself, it's a complicated matter. The main problem, as I see it, is that these 'entitlements' are out of sync with marriage - they are based upon what marriage used to be, not what it is now. With the society they were created for, not today's society. The whole institution, especially the question of 'entitlement' needs to be looked at and reformed, otherwise slowly or surely, the institution will eventually die.

So you do think gay marriage is a bad idea then.

I was reading the post wondering about the logic involved. I wont take your farm just half the value of the house.

Carlos Orange

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

What's wrong with it? It's the national language, why should the document suffer for your inadequacies?

Not buying into the creation myths of the country isn't really an inadequacy.

If nothing else it would be interesting to see which articles would survive a simple up or down vote.

Sleepy

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

I always laugh listening to that comment. It's clear people don't educate themselves a little better on what it says and, more importantly, how the court interprets it

What will it be replaced with?

Let's start by making it unnecessary for a court to "interpret" it. Let the lawyers go tell each other how great they are in the bar whilst leaving some technical writers define a new constitution.

More or less the same provisions bar

1. the Preamble; the church special position is gone, the parents are still the people responsible for the kids subject to better State intervention (hopefully with the new amendment amendment).

You say this as if references to fairytales in legal documents are acceptable.

2. A provision making the it more gender neutral about not obligating a certain parent from being forced to work .that proposal has been rejected at Convention, women are happy to keep it, the nonsense from feminist is grossly misplaced.what? So we should get rid of maternity leave? (rhetorical question to those who preceive the mother and home provision) divorce law can be amended. The special protection clause will likely remain in tact

**** what the special interest lobby groups want. A single line stating that no laws can be enacted on the basis of gender would be the ideal imo.

3 get rid of blasphemy? Probable , but I doubt that would succeed, but can be removed by the people

That blasphemy is considered a crime is farcical in the first instance. Believe the world was accidentally created when an incorporeal nose sneezed for all I care, just don't expect me to respect that belief.

4 property rights and right to good name? No chance. That would stay, there would be war if attempts were made for them to be removed

And with good cause. Property rights would obviously form part of a new constitution. Which is why I stated we should start afresh rather than do without one.

5. Get rid of the provision that says the Constitutional family is that of the married family. I would support that, but, the convention meetings say that would unlikely succeed.

Do you think the convention meetings were in any way representative of the population of Ireland? That those present were even the most competent to represent them or govern them? I wouldn't think so.

6 there is no way in hell, politically, would a government would Constitutionally bind itself in the manner South Africa does with regard to social issues like ensuring no child or person is homeless or the stuff in the Childrens Convention . For all the lovely things stated in the South African Constitution, theat country fails to implement them, miserably. Same applies with those well known socio economic cases

7 insert specific court acknowledged unremunerated rights? Hmm, doubt it would happen as per point 6

People moaned about the Seanad, yet kept it. We rightly said no toothed Dail having a bigger role in tribunal like inquiries

don't forget that we can amend our Constitution,as we shall see with gay marriage, one of few countries to actually put the matter to their people. and we have our courts to give more meat on what this short document says

8 forget having notions of some nonsense about a social leftie country.Not happening

Don't blame the Constitution.blame those who fail to adhere to it.it is still a solid document

I'm far from a "social leftie", the most accurate label I've seen for my politics would be "meritocratic".

I can't see Bunreacht na hEireann as a solid document. It's a relic from a distant past and to use an analogy of something of a similar age, a Ford 136 can have it's oil changed, it's brakes upgraded and it's steel patched but sooner or later, it comes time to replace, rather than patch things. Or are you a fan of Trigger's theory on savihng the council money by maintaining his brush?

"This old brooms had 17 new heads and 14 new handles in its time."

The Corinthian

efb wrote: »

No. No I don't. Where did you get that from???

Well, what you responded had absolutely nothing to do with the point I made, so I presume you were avoiding doing so so, either because you don't agree with gay marriage or because what you'd previously posted was indeed nonsense as I pointed out and you wanted to change the subject. Was I wrong and it was the latter?

Potatoeman wrote: »

I was reading the post wondering about the logic involved.

What confused you? My point was that when weighing up contributions in relationships you need to consider all of them. If you're going to consider the 'value' of effort put into the farm business by one spouse, then you have to also consider the value of accommodation supplied by the other, for example.

Of course, you could argue that the latter is co-owned upon marriage, but then the argument that such entitlements are based upon contribution or merit is out the window.

I wont take your farm just half the value of the house.

Is that all you feel you're entitled to? How modest.

Lt J.R. Bell

psinno wrote: »

Not buying into the creation myths of the country isn't really an inadequacy.

If nothing else it would be interesting to see which articles would survive a simple up or down vote.

Majority of them! Care to go through which ones would be out, after all, your pal made the argument

Couldn't care less what youbbuy into,brah, Irish is the legal first language.

zeffabelli

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

I always laugh listening to that comment. It's clear people don't educate themselves a little better on what it says and, more importantly, how the court interprets it

What will it be replaced with?

More or less the same provisions bar

1. the Preamble; the church special position is gone, the parents are still the people responsible for the kids subject to better State intervention (hopefully with the new amendment amendment).

2. A provision making the it more gender neutral about not obligating a certain parent from being forced to work .that proposal has been rejected at Convention, women are happy to keep it, the nonsense from feminist is grossly misplaced.what? So we should get rid of maternity leave? (rhetorical question to those who preceive the mother and home provision) divorce law can be amended. The special protection clause will likely remain in tact

3 get rid of blasphemy? Probable , but I doubt that would succeed, but can be removed by the people

4 property rights and right to good name? No chance. That would stay, there would be war if attempts were made for them to be removed

5. Get rid of the provision that says the Constitutional family is that of the married family. I would support that, but, the convention meetings say that would unlikely succeed.

6 there is no way in hell, politically, would a government would Constitutionally bind itself in the manner South Africa does with regard to social issues like ensuring no child or person is homeless or the stuff in the Childrens Convention . For all the lovely things stated in the South African Constitution, theat country fails to implement them, miserably. Same applies with those well known socio economic cases

7 insert specific court acknowledged unremunerated rights? Hmm, doubt it would happen as per point 6

People moaned about the Seanad, yet kept it. We rightly said no toothed Dail having a bigger role in tribunal like inquiries

don't forget that we can amend our Constitution,as we shall see with gay marriage, one of few countries to actually put the matter to their people. and we have our courts to give more meat on what this short document says

8 forget having notions of some nonsense about a social leftie country.Not happening

Don't blame the Constitution.blame those who fail to adhere to it.it is still a solid document

Any language, from a text message, to driving directions, to a constitution has unstable interpretability.

There are a number of ways to interpret language.

1. Intention 2. Historical context 3. Contemporary context. 4. Reader response. 5. Deconstruction 6. Marxist analysis 7. New Criticism 8. Using biographical data of the author to inform the text.

Meaning is fluid, flexible and changeable. Constitution shmonistitution. Legislators see what they want to see, as does everyone else.

efb

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, what you responded had absolutely nothing to do with the point I made, so I presume you were avoiding doing so so, either because you don't agree with gay marriage or because what you'd previously posted was indeed nonsense as I pointed out and you wanted to change the subject. Was I wrong and it was the latter?

What confused you? My point was that when weighing up contributions in relationships you need to consider all of them. If you're going to consider the 'value' of effort put into the farm business by one spouse, then you have to also consider the value of accommodation supplied by the other, for example.

Of course, you could argue that the latter is co-owned upon marriage, but then the argument that such entitlements are based upon contribution or merit is out the window.

Is that all you feel you're entitled to? How modest.

You said it was a contract between a man and woman, it was between a man and his father in law previously I corrected

Potatoeman

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, what you responded had absolutely nothing to do with the point I made, so I presume you were avoiding doing so so, either because you don't agree with gay marriage or because what you'd previously posted was indeed nonsense as I pointed out and you wanted to change the subject. Was I wrong and it was the latter?

What confused you? My point was that when weighing up contributions in relationships you need to consider all of them. If you're going to consider the 'value' of effort put into the farm business by one spouse, then you have to also consider the value of accommodation supplied by the other, for example.

Of course, you could argue that the latter is co-owned upon marriage, but then the argument that such entitlements are based upon contribution or merit is out the window.

Is that all you feel you're entitled to? How modest.

I think it can be the couples home but ownership should stay with the owner. That said they should not pay rent or mortgage payments if they have no right on the property. The asset splitting is from a different generation that does not fit todays world.

The Corinthian

efb wrote: »

You said it was a contract between a man and woman, it was between a man and his father in law previously I corrected

No I didn't, I said one of the rules of marriage was also that it is supposed to be between a man and a woman - nothing about contracts - and did so in response to your comment about "one of the rules of marriage is shared ownership".

So if you are happy to change the rules to marriage in the case of it involving a man and a woman, presuming you don't oppose gay marriage, would you not agree that other rules are also not set in stone and your original comment was a bit daft?

zeffabelli

Potatoeman wrote: »

I think it can be the couples home but ownership should stay with the owner. That said they should not pay rent or mortgage payments if they have no right on the property. The asset splitting is from a different generation that does not fit todays world.

Much like indentured servitude.

Potatoeman

efb wrote: »

Why marry then if you want a pre-nup?

One of the rules of marriage is shared ownership

One of the rules is until death do us part but we changed that.

efb

Potatoeman wrote: »

One of the rules is until death do us part but we changed that.

Yes by referendum! So that's how laws change. I have no problem with people wamting a referendum but you can't currently have marriage and not have shared ownership

efb

And if farmers want a religious wedding they will have to get the church to change too!

Wompa1

I' currently engaged. I'm making three times more than my wife to be. Her line of work will mean she will likely always make at least half as much as I'm on now. My future is far from sure, though, IT is an ever changing industry. She also has a significant amount of debt and I don't have any.

Personally, I'd be all for getting a pre-nup. We haven't talked about it since we got engaged. Mainly because we're having a long drawn out engagement. We talked it before we got engaged, she said she would be fine with it, if it was fair for both people.

It makes sense, if something did change and a divorce pops up. Why not have an agreement in place before anger takes over

I think it was Bill Burr that said for men, signing a marriage contract is so crazy, you wouldn't sign such a bad deal if you were buying a car.

osarusan

They are not exactly the most romantic things in the world, but if people want them, and another person still wants to marry them after being asked for one, that is fine with me.