Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

Devoted to discussion pertaining to those issues which are specifically relevant to people 45+. Topics must have a specific perspective of people in this age group for it to be on topic.

The story of Abraham and Sarah is told in chapters 11-25 of the book of Genesis.
Learn More:Abraham & Sarah

Dec 31st 2012 new

(Quote) Margo-404841 said: I would also agree with my future husband that my children would receive any assets that I have e...
(Quote) Margo-404841 said:

I would also agree with my future husband that my children would receive any assets that I have earned to date in my life. I would do likewise for him and his children. We would each sign a document to that effect. Any assets eaarned afetr the date of our marriage we would split equally. And then we could start our lives together knowing that we were doing so out of love, fairness and not greed.

--hide--
I believe this would be considered estate plannin for a blended ffamily, not a prenuptial agreemt. But a lawyer would not to confirm that.

Jan 5th 2013 new
(Quote) Margo-404841 said: I believe this would be considered estate plannin for a blended ffamily, not a prenuptial agreemt. But a lawyer...
(Quote) Margo-404841 said:

I believe this would be considered estate plannin for a blended ffamily, not a prenuptial agreemt. But a lawyer would not to confirm that.

--hide--


Well, someone must be planning something, or perhaps just thinking ahead.

By the word "threat," I meant someone worthy of distrust. Perhaps I am just being idealistic, but I would not want to be distrusted by a potential spouse, and nor would I care to distrust.

A focus on communication is a much better approach, and not so invasive. It is also in-line with Catholic Christian teachings about "pre-nups."

I think the best way is to go with gut instincts regarding this. There could potentially be some wide disparity in life-styles: what one deems a necessity could be viewed as a major luxury to another.
Jan 5th 2013 new

(Quote) Jacqueline-556574 said: Well, someone must be planning something, or perhaps just thinking ahead. By the wo...
(Quote) Jacqueline-556574 said:

Well, someone must be planning something, or perhaps just thinking ahead.

By the word "threat," I meant someone worthy of distrust. Perhaps I am just being idealistic, but I would not want to be distrusted by a potential spouse, and nor would I care to distrust.

A focus on communication is a much better approach, and not so invasive. It is also in-line with Catholic Christian teachings about "pre-nups."

I think the best way is to go with gut instincts regarding this. There could potentially be some wide disparity in life-styles: what one deems a necessity could be viewed as a major luxury to another.
--hide--



I guess I have seen money change people. They may verbally agree to something but when the rubber hits the road it is a different story. I was mainly talking about estate planning and protecting existing children's inheritance. Plus I figure a man around my age should also have been saving for his future, so if he hasn't that would be a big red flag to me (unless there is some reasonable explanation). I could never again marry somebody that is not good at managing his finances, as I will not carry the whole relationship in that way ever again.

Jan 5th 2013 new

I interviewed a lawyer about divorce law in my state a few years back for a story I was researching. He lived through the spike in divorce following 'no fault' divorce laws. But he said if you asked someone about prenupital agreements back in the day (roughly a generation ago or more), before divorce was so common, it would be considered an insult. I'm not commenting on your thoughts on the subject really, just an interesting side note. Considering marriage as you age gets increasingly complicated. But his comment, in its own way, was refreshingly simple.

Jan 5th 2013 new

(Quote) Elizabeth-462557 said: A prenup agreement anticipates divorce, which is why the Church doesn't supp...
(Quote) Elizabeth-462557 said:


A prenup agreement anticipates divorce, which is why the Church doesn't support them. If once married, we are "one," there is no "other person" that we need to keep in check.


My two cents.


- Elizabeth

--hide--

There's very few women like yourself Elizabeth. Women are filing for divorce much more than men, they know the laws better than men too. The young women of today were raised through modern secular political beliefs ( New World Order) which are contrary to the two thousand year Old Roman Catholic Order.

That's actually the battle that we are in at the moment. The New World Order based on chaos wants to destroy the old Roman Catholic Order which is based in The Christ Jesus. So, while I agree with you it really needs to be discussed in legal terms and the consequences of not having it.

Jan 5th 2013 new

(Quote) John-711000 said: There's very few women like yourself Elizabeth. Women are filing for divorce much mor...
(Quote) John-711000 said:

There's very few women like yourself Elizabeth. Women are filing for divorce much more than men, they know the laws better than men too. The young women of today were raised through modern secular political beliefs ( New World Order) which are contrary to the two thousand year Old Roman Catholic Order.

That's actually the battle that we are in at the moment. The New World Order based on chaos wants to destroy the old Roman Catholic Order which is based in The Christ Jesus. So, while I agree with you it really needs to be discussed in legal terms and the consequences of not having it.

--hide--


Legal terms have nothing to do with any new marriage I may have. The Church's standard is the only standard I am interested. The marriage I am hoping for is a complete union. If I don't trust possible future husband enough to marry him under the standards of the Church, I will not be marrying him. Prenupts are hedging your bets. I'm not a betting person.


Just my opinion.


- Elizabeth

Jan 5th 2013 new

John - Thank you for posting this. Whether we call such arrangements pre-nups or estate planning for blended families, division of assets in case of divorce -- or DEATH -- needs to be considered by individuals seriously contemplating marriage late in life. The intent should be protection of assets for the children of each person up until the point the marriage takes place. I personally know of a case where two mature people married, and the husband died three weeks later. The new wife got everything, and the husband's children got nothing.

My view is not made in defiance of Church doctrine, but as simple common sense to protect those we love and, in my case, to keep faith with the intentions of a beloved, previous spouse. We live in a secular, as well as spiritual world, and need to make provisions in that world for our children, just as we provide them food, clothing, shelter, education, and last, but by no means least, love.

Jan 5th 2013 new

(Quote) Edward-822102 said: My view is not made in defiance of Church doctrine, but as simple common sense to protect those ...
(Quote) Edward-822102 said:

My view is not made in defiance of Church doctrine, but as simple common sense to protect those we love and, in my case, to keep faith with the intentions of a beloved, previous spouse. We live in a secular, as well as spiritual world, and need to make provisions in that world for our children, just as we provide them food, clothing, shelter, education, and last, but by no means least, love.

--hide--
Welcome to the forums, Edward. I agree with you -- my intent would be to protect my children and provide for them out of love. I also am thoroughly committed to the idea of talking things out before there is a marriage so there are no unpleasant surprises, and so the marriage can be entered into with love, a deep feeling of security and the anticipation of spending our lives together.

Jan 5th 2013 new

(Quote) Elizabeth-462557 said: Legal terms have nothing to do with any new marriage I may have. The Church'...
(Quote) Elizabeth-462557 said:


Legal terms have nothing to do with any new marriage I may have. The Church's standard is the only standard I am interested. The marriage I am hoping for is a complete union. If I don't trust possible future husband enough to marry him under the standards of the Church, I will not be marrying him. Prenupts are hedging your bets. I'm not a betting person.


Just my opinion.


- Elizabeth

--hide--

I understand Elizabeth, and any man would be lucky to have you, but you are from the Old Order which produced the best of women. Men and Women of today that are looking to be married have to understand that honor is lacking and temptation and betrayal is great. That is just a fact of this present day.

I would like to point out, if you are not aware, that the whole of western civilization lived under Kingships until the birth of the American Republic. This was the first time since a Republic of this magnitude was created since the fall of the Roman Republic. The idea of a Republic is when men could live independently without a King. All Kingships were abloished by the United States after WW2, and all of the west declined as a result.

The idea of seperation of church and state was necessary for both to operate independently. Our church is ruled by the state under a 501 (c) tax exempt status (which is a scam) since the Constitution guaranteed separation. Here lies the problem when a couple gets married in our church (Traditional included) they can obtain a divorce on a "no fault basis" by the state. The church has no say in the matter.

I believe our church (and all churces to be fair) should only be able to obtain a divorce through the church in which they were married and have a solid reason. All no fault divorces need to be made illegal.

I understand your point very well.. But there is only two choices, to find a good spouse ( like yourself, which is rare ) or have a pre-nup or a legally binding agreement which is fair to both if the worst happens. I'm sorry but our church and we ourselves, are being oppressed by the state to weaken our families so we will not be competition for corporate America. Those are just the facts that need to be discussed.

Jan 5th 2013 new

(Quote) Edward-822102 said: John - Thank you for posting this. Whether we call such arrangements pre-nups or estate planning...
(Quote) Edward-822102 said:

John - Thank you for posting this. Whether we call such arrangements pre-nups or estate planning for blended families, division of assets in case of divorce -- or DEATH -- needs to be considered by individuals seriously contemplating marriage late in life. The intent should be protection of assets for the children of each person up until the point the marriage takes place. I personally know of a case where two mature people married, and the husband died three weeks later. The new wife got everything, and the husband's children got nothing.

My view is not made in defiance of Church doctrine, but as simple common sense to protect those we love and, in my case, to keep faith with the intentions of a beloved, previous spouse. We live in a secular, as well as spiritual world, and need to make provisions in that world for our children, just as we provide them food, clothing, shelter, education, and last, but by no means least, love.

--hide--

Your welcome Ed and thanks for your response.

Posts 21 - 30 of 42