Howdy boys and girls! Welcome to LimescaleON4Skin, the one-stop site where the aim is to add value to your life through alternative learning. From legal issues and mental ping-pong to the sexiest stuffs on earth, you can find it here. It dawned on me one day. Instead of sitting on my million dollar education, "Why not share MY thoughts with people around the world and see, hear, feel THEIR thoughts?" And what you might or might not learn here will hopefully be useful in many facets of your life, i.e. as conversational gems, as an aid in ironing out your stand or opinion on certain issues and helping you keep abreast with areas you do not have time to research on your own; as opposed to saying, "Well, that just doesn't feel right" or having to resort to mediocre punchlines. Next time you are caught between a rock and a hard place, come visit our database. If it is not already there, we will create one! Just post a comment. As long as you exit LimescaleON4Skin thinking you learned one minute thing, the team here is awfully proud.
The world is becoming an increaing competitive arena both economically and intellectually. How does one become the person others turn to? By speaking the truth, and knowing. J. S. Mill, the legend, once stated that the best test of truth is in a market of ideas. Only through debate, discussion and discourse can one filter out what is false until the Truth is distilled. Make no mistake, it is a painstaking process but a challenge which should and must be continuously renewed nonetheless.
Katrin Radmacher created history in the United Kingdom. She and her legal team fought all the way to the Supreme Court in order to uphold her pre-nuptial agreement. My mates and I were on the topic of pre-nuptial agreement on several occasions very recently when this news came crashing down last Wednesday! The decision was significant not least because the only judge who dissented was Baroness Hale, the only woman on the panel, who thought that Radmacher was not doing womankind a favour because she is the odd one out who actually has more wealth than her ex-husband! What about all the other woman who were silly enough to sign a pre-nuptial agreement only to get caught in the headlights during divorce? Coincidentally, my Jurisprudence lecturer was actually in the same class as Baroness Hale lightyears ago. My lecturer graduated 2nd in his year and Hale first. Guess that is why she went that mile further.
So what is the argument for and against pre-nups?
Against:
1. One party blinded by love, riding the emotional rollercoaster. Weaker party could be held to ransom: no pre-nup, no marriage.
2. A betrayal of trust, love, chemistry and all that good mojo. It should be understood that the relationship is not about money. It undermines the very institution of marriage, its sanctity.3. Does not represent the entire family unit, e.g. children, at that time of signing.
4. Completely ignores fluctuations in the parties' earning capacities during the marriage period.
5. Keeps the financially weaker party weak.For:
1. A reinforcement of trust. That the relationship is more than money, and the parties choose to signify that explicitly.
2. By denying pre-nups, it undermines a person's contractual status. Why should contracts be different when it comes to marriage? For God's sake, they are adults. Pre-nups are a celebration of post-modern women who are less emotionally vulnerable and possess the free will to enter into contracts as they (the women) deem fit.
3. Pre-nups can be fair/favourable to the financially weaker party.4. Creates certainty during divorce. Swift resolution of asset allocation. All parties, including children, can move on with their lives.
5. Prevent abuse of marriage. There will be gold-diggers out there to prowl and pounce.
Pitfall: We all agree that marriage is sacrosanct and that it should be based on trust, love and transparency. The presence or absence of a pre-nup should not automatically signify the presence or absence of love. There are married couples out there who have taken the time and effort to draft a pre-nup and are very much in love with one another. Radmacher herself was eager to use the pre-nup to test whether her ex-husband was really into her for the money. As it is, she was wrong, now why deny her the protection she deserves?
What did you learn today? What are your thoughts? Post a comment, rate and subscribe.
From the London team of contributors.
