Prenuptial Agreements

Are prenuptial agreements practical solutions to dealing with the problematic topic of finances in a marriage? The legal definition of a prenuptial agreement is a written contract between two people who are about to marry, setting out the terms of possession of assets, treatment of future earnings, control of the property of each, and potential division if the marriage is later dissolved. Although not very romantic, having this honest financial discussion prior to a wedding ceremony can be a very positive experience. The material suggests prenuptial agreements keep finances and debts separate and defines what property is considered martial or community property.

One of the main arguments for obtaining a prenuptial agreement is that a prenup would keep finances and debts separate within a marriage. After a divorce the court has the authority and responsibility of dividing the assets accumulated over the years during and prior to the marriage. “If you want to avoid having some or all of your individual accumulations during marriage divided up by a court, you can do so with a premarital agreement” (Stoner & Irving, 2010). By keeping finances separate it would alleviate the issues of dividing assets and money. Also, creditors can sometimes turn to marital or community property to satisfy the debts of just one spouse. You want to make sure that saying, "I do" does not mean saying "I owe," you can use a prenup to limit your liability for each other's debts” (Stoner & Irving, 2010). It’s not fair one spouse has to suffer financially and deal with creditors because the other spouse is financially irresponsible. That is why a prenup is essential when getting married especially if you don’t know about your spouse’s financial history.

Prenuptial agreements define what property is considered martial or community property. Without a prenup both parties are liable to lose property that they obtained prior to getting married during a divorce. “At all times, the parties shall enjoy the full right and authority with regard to their separate property as each would have had if not married, including but not limited to the right and authority to use, sell, enjoy, manage, gift and convey the separate property” (Larson, 2003). There is no reason a spouse should receive any property that they did not help invest in. Anything that was obtained before the marriage should not be considered as community property during a divorce.

Stoner and Irving suggest that a prenuptial agreement is the best way to secure personal finances and protect one’s self against the debts obtained by their spouse prior to and during marriage. Stoner and Irving assertion regarding how prenuptial agreements keep finances and debts separate is irrefutable. The prenuptial agreement is a legal written contract that is recognized in just about every court which outlines the terms and conditions associated with dividing up financial assets and responsibilities if the marriage dissolves. Stoner and Irving also provide the pros and cons of a prenuptial agreement alleviating the bias in their article..Larson proposes that a prenuptial agreement will allow you to keep all your assets that were obtained prior to marriage. In addition, Larson provides a detailed sample of a standard prenuptial agreement that lays out in details what is to be expected during a divorce settlement

There are a couple of conflicting arguments First, starting a relationship with a contract that sets forth the particulars of what will happen upon divorce can lead to a sense of lack of trust. The last thing couples want discuss before getting married is who gets what in case of divorce. It is not only unromantic but it sends a message to your future spouse that you are not confident this relationship will last. Secondly, if you contribute to the continuing success and growth of your spouse's business or professional practice by entertaining clients and taking care of the home you may not be entitled to claim a share of the increase in value if you agree otherwise in a premarital agreement. Under the laws of many states, this increase in value would be considered divisible marital property. Even though these claims could be true, I am still a supporter of the use of prenuptial agreements before marriage. Just look at the case of Paul McCartney and his ex-wife Heather Mills. Paul McCartney, ex Beatle, had to pay his ex-wife 47 million dollars in their divorce. . She actually asked for more money than that. This happened all because he did not want to sign a prenuptial agreement that she offered to sign. I know this is an extreme case but it supports my claim that it is essential to have a prenup if you’re financial successful. “The prenup seems so utterly unromantic — or just plain wrong — but it's also become so right for so many these days: those keenly aware that a marriage may end up in a legal separation, divorce or death. Most prenups tackle financial issues such as real estate, division of bank accounts and potential spousal support in the case of divorce or separation” (Petrecca, 2010). I firmly agree with this claim. Prenuptial agreements exist to protect couples financially, just in case the marriage doesn’t work out.

Bibliography
Larson, A. (2003, August). Sample Prenuptial Agreement. Retrieved July 18, 2010, from Expert Law: http://www.expertlaw.com/library/family_law/prenuptial_agreement_form.html
Petrecca, L. (2010, March 11). Prenuptial agreements: Unromantic, but important. USA Today , p. 1.
Stoner, K., & Irving, S. J. (2010). Prenuptial Agreements -- What the Law Allows. NOLO: Legal Solutions for You .

Same Sex Marriage

"Should we allow gay couples to legally marry?" Same sex marriage has become a national issue, putting religious and social conservatives against gay rights advocates. Marriage is viewed by some as the ultimate expression of love for another person. When person decides to marry someone he/she are saying, “I love you so much that I would like to spend the rest of my life with you and forsake all others”. Heterosexual couples are allowed to express their love for one another in the form of marriage, so why won’t we allow homosexual couples to do the same? The material argues that the right to marriage is a violation of religious freedom and a form of discrimination. It is also important to note that by not allowing people to marry based on their gender we are overlooking the main reason people get married, love.

One of the main arguments for denying homosexuals the right to marriage is that in many religions homosexuality is considered a sin. “However, the First Amendment of the Constitution clearly states that a person's religious views or lack thereof must be protected. Marriage by the state is a secular activity; the government cannot start making laws just because a religion says they should” (Messerli, 2009). The state cannot deny same sex marriages based on religious reasons because the state is suppose to act bias toward religious beliefs, and marriage is an act that is carried out by the state.

Proponents of gay marriage argue that not allowing homosexuals to get married because of their sexual orientation is a form of discrimination. Homosexuals often compare their struggle to the civil rights movement. “History, shows us that marriage is a civil right that has expanded over time to include previously marginalized groups; gays now deserve those rights as well” (Hymowitz, 2004). The civil rights movement was founded on the idea of equality and putting an end to discrimination. Homosexuals are facing a very visible form of discrimination based on their sexual orientation and gender.

Above all, love should be the main reason why people get married. Marriage is considered the ultimate expression of love. “The number one reason that heterosexuals marry is not to establish legal status, allow joint filing of taxes, or protect each other in medical decision-making. They marry because it is the ultimate expression of a person's love for another” (Messerli, 2009). Homosexuals want to be able to express their love in a form that says, “I love you above everything else”, and the way to do that is through marriage.

Messerli and Hymowits state that prohibiting same sex marriage is a violation of the First Amendment, which prohibits the making of any law “respecting an establishment of religion”. Prop 8 is a constitutional amendment in California which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Therefore, laws such as Prop 8 are in violation of their constitutional rights. Messerli’s assertion regarding the concept of love and marriage is questionable. Yes, it may hold true that most people marry for love but this may not be the case for all gay couples. Messerli fails to provide evidence that would reinforce his argument on love. In contrast he does provide the pros and cons of same sex marriage, alleviating the bias in his article. Hymowitz argument is based on the concept of the civil rights movement. The movement was intended to bring full civil rights and equality to all Americans under the law, and this is the same equality that homosexual couples are fighting for.

There are many conflicting arguments. Virtually every religion in the world considers homosexuality unacceptable and a sin for the following reasons: first, it would weaken the definition and respect for the institution of marriage, second, it would further weaken the traditional family values essential to our society, finally, homosexual lifestyle is not something to be encouraged. I’m an advocate of same sex marriage. My research indicates that same sex couples should be awarded the rights of marriage just like heterosexuals due to the Bill of Rights. Mefford asserts that “Probably the greatest drawback to same-sex marriages is the blatant and often unconsidered discrimination and denial of human rights to same-sex couples” (Mefford, 2009). Mefford also claims that same sex couples should not have the right to marry. Religion and society should not be able to dictate who you’re allowed to marry. It should be a personal decision. Therefore, I’m not opposed to legalizing same sex marriage.

Bibliography
Holmes, S., & Holmes, R. (2009). Sex Crimes: Patterns and Behaviors. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
Hymowitz, K. (2004). Gay Marriage vs American Marriage. City Journal .
Mefford, D. (2009). The Pros and Cons of Same Sex Marriage. Edu Book .
Messerli, J. (2009, 5 24). Should Same Sex Marriages Be Legalized? Retrieved from BalancedPolitics.org: http://www.balancedpolitics.org/same_sex_marriages.htm