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

efb · 27-04-2015 2:04pm

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 · 27-04-2015 2:11pm

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 · 27-04-2015 2:18pm

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 · 27-04-2015 3:06pm

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 · 27-04-2015 3:09pm

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 · 27-04-2015 3:23pm

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 · 27-04-2015 3:27pm

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 · 27-04-2015 3:27pm

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 · 27-04-2015 3:39pm

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 · 27-04-2015 3:40pm

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 · 27-04-2015 3:51pm

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 · 27-04-2015 3:53pm

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 · 27-04-2015 4:02pm

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 · 27-04-2015 4:03pm

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 · 27-04-2015 4:04pm

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 · 27-04-2015 4:06pm

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 · 27-04-2015 4:11pm

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 · 27-04-2015 4:12pm

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

Wompa1 · 27-04-2015 4:16pm

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 · 27-04-2015 4:24pm

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.

zeffabelli · 27-04-2015 4:24pm

efb wrote: »

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

If a farmer wants a pre nup, fine, but his wife should not lift a ****ing finger, not even to make a cup of tea.

bjork · 27-04-2015 4:27pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

If a farmer wants a pre nup, fine, but his wife should not lift a ****ing finger, not even to make a cup of tea.

Why? Is making tea "outside normal marital duties"

Lt J.R. Bell · 27-04-2015 4:29pm

Sleepy wrote: »

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.

First off, let me thank you and your pally wally who thanked you for your comment. You made me laugh heartly . Nothing better to listen to someone who hasn't thought his statement through

So, you advocate a Constitution about 300 pages so, which will be specific as to the meaning of every word or provision. Make the Document inflexible and potentially contradictory, thus the need for many referendums to change it. Though I assume, you probably oppose referendums on certain areas.

Leave it to the Legislatures, I hear you say?

You are surely aware of the dangers with Legislators having all of the power (was going to say Parliament but they are a joke) who guillotine legislation into law eg Marriage Referendum , still waiting on this adoption act that was due to get rid of the arguments from the No side about adoptions (always intended to be last minute enactment)

This might shock you, but...... the guys who draft the legislation of this country.... tend to be lawyers! The very same guys who are or were in the Law Library . Certainly aint the TD's. They kinda have to look at the Law to ensure that they are complying with the Constitution

So, you have a major problem with the State Departments /government/State, you go to Court. You don't want an Independent Body like the Judiciary to interpret what a certain word in the Constitution means, or to listen to your argument that a provision, in light of today's society should actually mean something else (something in your favour). Roooiiigggghhhttteeee.

Sleepy wrote: »

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

Sound bites don't make good argument. You gotta make more of an effort

This is what I said

The following to be changed: The Preamble.

I doubt one would dispute the removal of this now harmless provision.

I also said

1. the church special position is gone, - Fact. Gone since 1973. Anticipating your reply, The Equality Act provision is separate to that, part of religious freedom. School run by the Church is also separate to that previous sub provision. (oh how did Ruairi get on with changing the schools again? How many changed?)

2.the parents are still the people responsible for the kids subject to better State intervention (hopefully with the new amendment amendment) Fact, no fairy tale. Remains to be seen how effective the State intervention will be . So, far courts are full of child care applications, so... Other than were it's merited ,you advocate in State Interference of families?

Sleepy wrote: »

**** 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.

I don't really have an issue with the provision on place in the home and non obligation to work, in order to raise the family, being gender neutral. I'm all for the man /father to have a better deal. However, I am interested in what is practical, and not what "would be ideal"

I doubt you could really say that certain women's groups who participated in the Convention discussions over the past 10 years could be classed in the same league as lobby groups for business. They do represent a very good proportion of the electorate. However, a lobby group is a lobby group. Lobby groups tend to be the voice of alot of people that it represents , yall.

All I said to this , is that economically and politically, that won't fly.Guaranteed paternity leave? Whose gonna get out and work?.

Sleepy wrote: »

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.

Meh, I have no real opposition towards getting rid of it. Though, I oppose the despicable behaviour of the Je Suis Charlie bigots, even if it was towards Muslims. It is strange that it was in the Constitution, don't think other Constitutions had it or have it.

No one cares what you think, you are just one person (my comment about the likelihood of it succeeding to be removed, is just an educated guess,no more) Suffice to say, that might have a rocky enough passage to be removed (not a reason to prevent a discussion or referendum of course)

Sleepy wrote: »

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.

Eh, why would you start "afresh"?, we already have strong property rights and right to a good name, contained in the current Constitution. Who on earth would suggest not having property rights in any Constitution?

Sleepy wrote: »

Do you think the convention meetings were in any way representative of the population of Ireland?

No, but, they pushed the gay marriage referendum ...

Everyone is invited to make submissions at these Conventions, so......

Society can't stop and wait just because people in society are too busy, uninterested or down right stupid to engage in discussions or meetings about how we want our society .the election polls are pretty poor, so, can you really say that our current Dail is really a true reflection on our society ?

The only true test of what the people think is the Referendum

Conventions also comprise of experts in the field dealing with the subject. You have also got the legal experts who state what the laws have been since the meeting. You kinda need that, to know what you are seeking to change.

All seriousness, do you think proposals some how come out of thin air?

Most referendum proposals come directly from Constitutional Review Conventions unless of course, they are in response to a recent court case

What are you looking for, a populist vote on important Constitutional matters? Great, an never ending amendment based on the witterings of whomever is in power at a particular time.

Sleepy wrote: »

That those present were even the most competent to represent them or govern them? I wouldn't think so.

I wonder whether you even know who tends to attend these Conventions. I kinda of doubt it.Suffice to say, keep your eyes and ears peeled for the next one, you are welcome to attend

Sleepy wrote: »

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

Praise the Lord

Sleepy wrote: »

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,

You see nothing. You haven't a clue about what the Constitution says. Your lengthy statements above confirm this.

You have barely addressed anything about how the Constitution would drastically be any different if it was drawn up today.

The Constitution more or less has ALL of the Fundamental Rights that we now see in the European Court on Human Rights. THe Constitution was drafted in 1937, Convention in 1956. The Court Interpretations, which, you laughably want rid of, kept Bunreacht na hEireann up to date to meet with modern times (some of which was inspired by the ECHR which wasn't part of our laws, domestically, until 2003).

If the Court can't or won't rule in your favour, in theory , one avenue is to call for a referendum to change the Constitution.

Sleepy wrote: »

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.

Waffle . You believe in change for the sake of change, but don't have the foresight or intelligence to note how similar a new Constitution would be to Bunreacht na hEireann, one that would REALISTICALLY be approved by a majority of the people of this country. You have failed to identify substantial provisions that would be removed or changed. (I emphasise on the word substantial)

Sleepy wrote: »

Or are you a fan of Trigger's theory on savihng the council money by maintaining his brush?

Hey, Sleepy, here is a made idea: Educate yourself as to what you are talking about and lay off the irrelevant comparisons, like a good chap.

For a start, those brushes needed a change and really, they once the original head and broom went......

The Constitution , most of it would be the same as Bunreacht na hEireann.Cosmetic Surgery no more, like a tit job. Not necessary, but desirable

Thanks for the Laugh.:D

zeffabelli · 27-04-2015 4:30pm

bjork wrote: »

Why? Is making tea "outside normal marital duties"

And they should also rear the children for exactly 50% of the time and farmer husband responsible for childcare rest of the time.

Good luck with that farmer husband.

bjork · 27-04-2015 4:32pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

And they should also rear the children for exactly 50% of the time and farmer husband responsible for childcare rest of the time.

Good luck with that farmer husband.

And the wife will not be allowed to work late or accommodated in any way for hairdresser appointments

Sounds like a fun marriage

....Will you marry me?

efb · 27-04-2015 4:33pm

I'm aware if I ever marry my husband would have a share in my house from that moment forward. I've no issue- his house will probably be bigger! Lol

bjork · 27-04-2015 4:33pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

Oh no...no no...she can surely be responsible for her own mess and food etc...but he can cook his own dinner, raise his kids half the time, do all the farming duties himself...which as we all know can run day into night and there really is no such thing as a holiday.

Otherwise let him buy a slave.

So she'll be paying for herself, half of the children and half of the house?

Would you be willing to take on half the debts?

zeffabelli · 27-04-2015 4:35pm

bjork wrote: »

So she'll be paying for herself, half of the children and half of the house?

Would you be willing to take on half the debts?

Why would she pay for half the house?

Herself, half the childcare, half the costs of the children. If a farmer''s wife does what is expected of a farmer's wife and also under a prenup contract all she is a slave.

bjork · 27-04-2015 4:36pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

Why would she pay for half the house?

Herself, half the childcare, half the costs of the children. If a farmer''s wife does what is expected of a farmer's wife and also under a prenup contract all she is a slave.

Well where is she going to live?

oh, you mean the farmer has to pay for the house aswell?

zeffabelli · 27-04-2015 4:38pm

bjork wrote: »

Well where is she going to live?

oh, you mean the farmer has to pay for the house aswell?

Usually when you own a slave, you house, feed and clothe them and they do stuff for you on your land and in your home.

Thats how slavery works. How is that any different frm what you are proposing? I suppose you expect her to provide sex too. YEah some slaves have to do that too.

Potatoeman · 27-04-2015 4:38pm

efb wrote: »

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

Is shared ownership part of marriage or division of assets part of divorce? You can have a private bank account while married so its the divorce that requires the assets are shared.

Diemos · 27-04-2015 4:39pm

eviltwin · 27-04-2015 4:39pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

Oh no...no no...she can surely be responsible for her own mess and food etc...but he can cook his own dinner, raise his kids half the time, do all the farming duties himself...which as we all know can run day into night and there really is no such thing as a holiday.

Otherwise let him buy a slave.

Now that's a bit ridiculous. I don't keep a tab on how much I do for my spouse vs how much he does for me. Marriage is a partnership and everyone has to do their bit. If he's working all day and she's at home - or vice versa - then of course she should maintain the house, mind kids etc

bjork · 27-04-2015 4:39pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

Usually when you own a slave, you house, feed and clothe them and they do stuff for you on your land and in your home.

Thats how slavery works.

I make my partner tea, I am not a slave

Sometimes, I even run them a bath

Unchain me

zeffabelli · 27-04-2015 4:41pm

eviltwin wrote: »

Now that's a bit ridiculous. I don't keep a tab on how much I do for my spouse vs how much he does for me. Marriage is a partnership and everyone has to do their bit. If he's working all day and she's at home - or vice versa - then of course she should maintain the house, mind kids etc

The farming life is quite different. Home and work are the same thing.

zeffabelli · 27-04-2015 4:42pm

bjork wrote: »

I make my partner tea, I am not a slave

Sometimes, I even run them a bath

Unchain me

Did she make you sign a prenup while you work in the field or raise the kids while she is working the field?

bjork · 27-04-2015 4:44pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

Did she make you sign a prenup while you work in the field or raise the kids while she is working the field?

Divorce wasn't a thing when we got married

Now it is

jackofalltrades · 27-04-2015 6:38pm

Completely in favour of pre-nups.

I'd get one to make a possible divorce go smoother.
People change and breakups can lead to people acting out of anger.
Add in a house or kids and that's a recipe for disaster.

If I didn't trust a woman or thought she was a gold digger, then I wouldn't marry her.

nokia69 · 27-04-2015 7:27pm

jackofalltrades wrote: »

If I didn't trust a woman or thought she was a gold digger, then I wouldn't marry her.

well of course not, who would

you can't predict how someone will act during a break up, hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, or a woman who thinks she has been scorned

jackofalltrades · 27-04-2015 7:36pm

nokia69 wrote: »

well of course not, who would

I said that in response to the idea, that the reason some men get them is because they don't trust the woman that they plan to marry.

zeffabelli · 27-04-2015 7:56pm

Chilledlime wrote: »

You can trust someone but also realise that you are human and capable of making mistakes. Therefore you realise that there is a possibility that you misplaced your trust.

It may be a case no one trusts anyone, they just either trust or mistrust their own perceptions of the other.

One of the dimenas of marriage is that it promises certainty, or at least the illusion of certainty, and then when you bring in pre nups and just in cases then you compromise that promise and the illusions is carries with it.

Emsloe · 27-04-2015 7:57pm

I'd be all for it if we're going into the marriage on an unequal footing in terms of assets etc. If we go in equal I wouldn't bother. Much like death, divorce brings out the worst in people a lot of the time.

RobertKK · 27-04-2015 8:17pm

I admit I voted against divorce because the law change was not good if you owned something like a farm.
I don't see why if one owns something worth a lot of money and then you marry someone, they could divorce you and take half your business with them, making it non viable, and maybe having to get a very large loan if the bank would lend so you could buy back what you already owned before the marriage.

The farm was a big issue during the divorce referendum. I suspect most farmers voted against it, given it put the farm at risk.
The divorce referendum should also have allowed pre-nuptial agreements.
Better late than never if they now introduce it.

jackofalltrades · 27-04-2015 8:44pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

One of the dimenas of marriage is that it promises certainty, or at least the illusion of certainty, and then when you bring in pre nups and just in cases then you compromise that promise and the illusions is carries with it.

But with marriage you're making a promise that's based on a feelings that can change.
So you can't really promise to love someone for the rest of your life.
Pre-nups, just like seperation and divorce acknowledge this reality.

zeffabelli · 27-04-2015 8:49pm

jackofalltrades wrote: »

But with marriage you're making a promise that's based on a feelings that can change.
So you can't really promise to love someone for the rest of your life.
Pre-nups, just like seperation and divorce acknowledge this reality.

You are right.

But you can't base a contract on things that can change either. Contracts are renewable with specific time frames, all sorts of get out clauses...bi lateral agreements.

There's an interesting documentary called Divorce Corp and in it somewhere explains the evolution of family court. The whole thing is utterly weird. It emerged basically out of tort law.

It makes no sense in this day and age when we have so many other options like mediators and legal negotiations to still do it this way.

Based on your logic of feelings change, oh yes they do! why get married at all?

Lt J.R. Bell · 27-04-2015 8:57pm

The real tricky part is, what happens if the non owning spouse actually puts a lot of time and her own money into the farm business. I'm not talking Mickey mouse 40-60 acres of barren land out West only fit for sheep.

Laws as it is, is kinda messed up when dealing with non owning spouse who wants abit of the wealth, invested in doing up the place,maybe improving it,but is not a Co owner (speaking from the non owner point if view)

If I recall correctly, the Supreme Court in 1992 was prepared to give a share of a farm /house to non owning wife,but while gave important contributions by house work and farm work but no financial contribution (ie mortgage etc) they looked at the provision on mothers in the home. This was subsequently rejected very shortly afterwards by another composition of the Supreme Court that year,on slightly different grounds. Then came the quashing of the matrimonial home bill, that tried to aid non owning spouse. Property rights being in the way

People get the wrong idea that pre nup means she wife gets absolutely nothing.

Let's face it, surely, in this country, if you have been married for at least 6 years, pre nups maybe a bit redundant,surely?,when we look at the practical side ie children , forms of financial contributions. Surely the non owning spouse who ain't a gold digga or a ho contributed to the improvement of the home and farm,(but nit necessarily the mortgage or bills) will hardly walk away empty handed?

All of that would have to be legislated for. To expect a lawyer no matter how competent to draft a full proof pre nup without much guideness would not be fun. Guarantee some angry farmer (understandably) would try to sue the lawyer

zeffabelli · 27-04-2015 9:11pm

Thing is being a farmer's wife is not like being another kind of wife, it's like a vicar's wife....vocational...the nature of it is so interwoven with the livelyhood.

jackofalltrades · 27-04-2015 9:16pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

Based on your logic of feelings change, oh yes they do! why get married at all?

Yeah that's a really good question.
For me it would come down to what legal advantages it confers.
And the Civil Partnership bill is pushing you in that direction anyway.

bjork · 27-04-2015 9:18pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

Thing is being a farmer's wife is not like being another kind of wife, it's like a vicar's wife....vocational...the nature of it is so interwoven with the livelyhood.

If you take the land, what are they suppose to do to earn money?

If they get divorced, their career goes too?

zeffabelli · 27-04-2015 9:23pm

bjork wrote: »

If you take the land, what are they suppose to do to earn money?

If they get divorced, their career goes too?

That's a good point.

Farming and land in Ireland nearly qualify as their own religion.

I know a farmer who is not leaving his only son, his only child, the land in his will because the child does not have a 'relationship with the land."

And the life of farming for farmers and their wives so so vocational, it really can't be compared to other marriages.

Maybe farmers shouldn't get married, no one is forcing them to, because when a woman or perhaps with the new impending legislation a man is,they do end up enconsed in the vocation and then to demand they invest in that vocation but in the case of a divorce end up with nothing, seems like the spouse in the end was nothing more than an indentured servant.

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

Comments