No divorce marriage clause?

[Missy Mouse]

With all the DIS marriage drama on this board, I was wondering, if you could insert a "no divorce" clause as a prenuptial agreement, would you? If you say yes, would you insert certain stipulations such as "with the exception of cheating or abuse?" or would you legally bind yourself to sticking it out through anything?

As for myself, I think I would insert a no divorce clause, not because I think my relationship will always be perfect, but because I feel marriage is a strong enough commitment where we can face almost anything, including perhaps cheating. I strongly believe we would never have to deal with cheating, but I'm not naive enough to believe it couldn't happen. I think the clause would force us to work through just about anything and to try and ultimately build a stronger marriage. I also ask this because I was reading something on the divorce rates in America compared to other countries and how couples aren't allowed to divorce because they don't like each other, argue,or fall out of love. Not being able to divorce except for in extreme circumstances is supposed to make the citizens have to work on their marriages but it could never work here because of all the freedom we have. The article compared us specifically to India and Japan. It would have been interesting if it had added what % are actually happily married.

 

[Toby'sFriend]

nope

Sorry, but if it comes down to the point where the only thing binding me to my husband is a piece of paper that forces him to stay with me or me to stay with him --- then I wouldn't want to be married to him anymore.

 

[Soubrette]

I've been reading a lot of DIS marriage drama and it got me thinking. If you could insert a "no divorce" clause as a prenuptial agreement, would you? If you say yes, would you insert certain stipulations such as "with the exception of cheating or abuse?" or would you legally bind yourself to sticking it out through anything?

As for myself, I would insert a no divorce clause, not because I think my relationship will always be perfect, but because I feel marriage is a strong enough commitment where we can face anything, including cheating. I strongly believe we would never have to deal with cheating, but I'm not naive enough to believe it couldn't happen. I think the clause would force us to work through anything and ultimately build a stronger marriage.

And you include abuse with that?

There's a lot of implied criticism in your post, which is not very generous to anyone who happens to be going through "marriage drama" (a phrase which, IMO, belittles some very serious problems which people here are struggling through).

 

[Kath2003]

No!

Firstly, I would not want to be with someone who I didn't want to be with - for a variety of reasons. What if there were mental problems which led to domestic abuse? What if my partner cheated continually? Could I live with abuse or the fact that my partner was going to see another woman every night?

Secondly, I would not want to be with someone who didn't want to be with me.

I agree that divorce should be the last resort but I still want that emergency exit door.

 

[azgal81]

No way I wouldn't want to force someone to stay married to me if they don't love me anymore or want to be with me anymore just because that's what the no divorce clause said. I wouldn't want to be in a marriage like that where we were strangers who had to stay together just because of that. That just seems silly!

 

[Missy Mouse]

And you include abuse with that?

There's a lot of implied criticism in your post, which is not very generous to anyone who happens to be going through "marriage drama" (a phrase which, IMO, belittles some very serious problems which people here are struggling through).

No, not abuse. I'd never stand to be abused and I don't believe anyone should. That's why I asked if you'd include stipulations. I am not talking about serious marriage issues such as abuse - I'm talking about inlaws, she always leaves the peanut butter out, he never puts the toilet seat down, Hollywood marriage farces, and things of that nature, not serious life-threatening issues. I was reading something about the divorce rates in America and how when divorce was a highly ridiculed option, people were forced to try and work things out. It was extremely unheard of to divorce because you simply didn't like the person anymore. That's what I meant by the original post. Hope that clarifies.

 

[Missy Mouse]

No!

Firstly, I would not want to be with someone who I didn't want to be with - for a variety of reasons. What if there were mental problems which led to domestic abuse? What if my partner cheated continually? Could I live with abuse or the fact that my partner was going to see another woman every night?

Secondly, I would not want to be with someone who didn't want to be with me.

I agree that divorce should be the last resort but I still want that emergency exit door.

Those are two stipulations for exception you could put in the "no divorce" clause. They are two very obvious reasons to end a marriage. Still, some partners will stand by each other even through cheating. I was reading an old thread on it and a poster said that life happens and if her husband was to cheat on her she would stand by him because people make mistakes and everyone has human hormones. I was just looking for it but search isn't working.

 

[RayaniFoxmur]

No way. If my FH someday decided that he didn't want to be with me anymore I wouldn't want an agreement made before we got married to be the only thing keeping him with me. Plus, you never know what life is going to throw your way. If you can work through things that's wonderful, but unfortunately not everyone can.

 

[Kath2003]

Those are two stipulations for exception you could put in the "no divorce" clause. They are two very obvious reasons to end a marriage. Still, some partners will stand by each other even through cheating. I was reading an old thread on it and a poster said that life happens and if her husband was to cheat on her she would stand by him because people make mistakes and everyone has human hormones. I was just looking for it but search isn't working.

No, sorry. I wouldn't want to spend my life with someone I couldn't stand to be around, nor would I want to force that on my partner.

 

[luvtogo12]

I vote no. Like the other posters, I would not want to force my DH to stay with me if he was not happy. DH would not want to force me to stay with him either.

 

[shellybaxter]

My husband and I talked about divorce before we were married. We both agreed that there would be no divorce for us. We truly wanted to make a life long commitment to each other. Now this discussion had no legal implications, but we've lived by it. There have been rough patches but we've never considered divorce. Our 20th wedding aniversary is coming up at the end of the month so we've managed to work things out so far. I think we love each other deeper than we did when we got married. Staying together through the hard times has drawn us closer.

 

[Luv'sTink]

Nope.

For most of the reasons stated above.

 

[Art Vandalay]

And what of when you try, try and try harder and your spouse doesn't? It's easy to say you'd stay and work things out in the abstract. After years of banging your head against a brick wall, it's not quite so black and white anymore.

 

[L107ANGEL]

Not just no, but hellno! Reasons were already stated.

 

[Missy Mouse]

And what of when you try, try and try harder and your spouse doesn't? It's easy to say you'd stay and work things out in the abstract. After years of banging your head against a brick wall, it's not quite so black and white anymore.

Yup, that would definitely be one down side of a no divorce clause. If you don't love each other anymore, too bad, find a way to love each other cause the paper says it's not a good enough reason to divorce.

 

[Missy Mouse]

Not just no, but hellno! Reasons were already stated.

If that was the law, would you have picked the same person to marry? Or would you not get married ever?

 

[Toby'sFriend]

I guess I'm confused as to why you think this piece of paper would be any more binding than the marriage vow

In sickness and in health, for richer or poorer, till death do us part?



If you're getting married in some type of religious ceremony, that's a promise to God. Is a "pre-nup" more binding than a promise to God?

 

[Missy Mouse]

I guess I'm confused as to why you think this piece of paper would be any more binding than the marriage vow

In sickness and in health, for richer or poorer, till death do us part?



If you're getting married in some type of religious ceremony, that's a promise to God. Is a "pre-nup" more binding than a promise to God?

Interesting question. I think it depends. Atheists don't make that promise to God...and there's supposedly separation between Church and State. You can't go to jail for breaking a promise to God, but you can for breaking the law. That paper would be a legal document. Of course, you'll have to answer to God when you get to the pearly gates.

 

[Toby'sFriend]

You can't go to jail for breaking a promise to God, but you can for breaking the law. That paper would be a legal document.

No, I'm definitely not in favor of putting all the divorced people in jail.

 

[lovemygoofy]

What's the point of the prenup if you are going to have the divorce clause? If the caluse gets broken does that mean the prenup is voided?