No divorce marriage clause?

[mickeyfan2]

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.

 

[mom2rb]

HELL NO!!! I am happily married, I don't see myself ever getting divorced. The only reason I am happily married was that my parents had the good sense to split up. My god what a horrible childhood I would've had if I had to live in the same house with both of them. Can you say two people that should have never been together. My dad went on to marry the most wonderful women. My brother and I got to see what a marriage should be like, and now both of us have a great marriage.

I get so sick of people talking about how bad all divorce is or how it is always bad for the children. Sometimes divorce is the best thing for everyone involved.

 

[BensMom]

 

[dementia412]

I am a fan of sticking it out, working through the hard days, and all that... but there are too many people who manage to pull the wool over others' eyes. What if that wonderful guy or girl turns out to be abusive, or have an addiction they can't beat (sticking it out can only go so far), what if the relationship is bad for the kids.... there are just so many things that can go wrong, and not being able to get out could not only ruin peoples' lives, but possibly put them in physical danger.

Then again I am 100% totally against pre-nups in the first place because you can not see the future, and know what dramatic changes may occur for you or your spouse.

 

[smartestnumber5]

I'd never have such a clause.

To agree to such a clause would seem to be saying that one thinks one's current self (the one doing the signing) knows better than one's future self (the one who may make a decision that it is best to end the marriage). Barring extenuating circumstances such as my having reason to believe that I am going to become demented or something, why would I not trust my future self?

 

[L107ANGEL]

I'd never have such a clause.

To agree to such a clause would seem to be saying that one thinks one's current self (the one doing the signing) knows better than one's future self (the one who may make a decision that it is best to end the marriage). Barring extenuating circumstances such as my having reason to believe that I am going to become demented or something, why would I not trust my future self?

I need a translation, sorry, its been a long day

 

[katerkat]

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.

OK, we don't love each other anymore, so we smack each other a couple times to get divorced due to abuse. Problem solved. DH would probably claim I verbally abuse him all the time. He's a whiner.

Besides, it's not that other countries have a lower divorce rate than us because they're more committed to their marriage or work harder at it. It's because it's considered acceptable that, if a couple has lost interest in each other, that they have an "understanding" and live their own lives even though still married to each other.

My aunt lives like that and I never could. I spend enough time "living my own life" when DH is deployed that when he's here, I want to live our life. I couldn't live with him day in and day out without wanting to be here with him.

 

[Planogirl]

I think that divorce is too prevalent but I would never agree to such a clause. I've been in the position of needing a divorce and I would have been absolutely miserable if trapped in the situation I was in. Uh-uh, no way.

 

[BensMom]

I am a fan of sticking it out, working through the hard days, and all that... but there are too many people who manage to pull the wool over others' eyes. What if that wonderful guy or girl turns out to be abusive, or have an addiction they can't beat (sticking it out can only go so far), what if the relationship is bad for the kids.... there are just so many things that can go wrong, and not being able to get out could not only ruin peoples' lives, but possibly put them in physical danger.

Then again I am 100% totally against pre-nups in the first place because you can not see the future, and know what dramatic changes may occur for you or your spouse.

Bingo...except for the pre-nup. I would like to keep my money, thank you, especially if it's family money or hard-earned money, prior to one's meeting a spouse.

 

[smartestnumber5]

I need a translation, sorry, its been a long day

Sorry--I didn't explain that very well.

Well I was thinking of it like this:

When GF decided to stop smoking--at a moment when she wasn't craving a cigarette she told me that in the next few day she might want one really, really bad and I wasn't to allow her to have one no matter how bad she wanted one. GF knew she wasn't going to be thinking all that rationally after a few days of going cold turkey--her addiction was going to take over. So she had good reason not to trust herself (at least for a few weeks until the physical withdrawal subsided) to make a rational decision about whether to smoke a cigarette.

Similarly, someone who's going out drinking with friends might ask the designated driver for the night to make sure she doesn't go home with anyone. She might say, "No matter how much I like a guy or how hot he is or how insistent I am, do not let me go home with him. When I'm drunk I want to have sex with every guy in the room and you need to stop me."

It seems like the idea of a no-divorce clause does the same thing. It says that me-now (me at the time of signing) is somehow in a better position to make decisions about marriage than the me-10-years-from-now (the me who might be tempted to get a divorce), and so all decision making power should be taken away from the me-in-10-years. Now that makes sense to me when it comes to drunkeness and addiction; of course I'm going to be a very poor decision maker when I'm drunk or in withdrawal. But I fail to see why I should think that me-now is a better decision maker than me-in-10-years when it comes to marriage/divorce. 10 years of marriage isn't like going through withdrawal or being drunk--it doesn't tend to make people completely irrational and prone to doing really stupid things (at least, I don't think it does! ). In fact, if anything me-in-10-years will probably be a better decision maker about staying in the marriage than I am now; in 10 years I'll have much more experience and knowledge of the world, plus I'll know all of the details of what is going badly in the marriage which I don't know now.

I have two close cousins (A and B) who are on their 2nd marriages. When they got married around age 22 they seemed to have the belief that there are only a few good reasons for divorce--mostly abuse or infidelity; so had they signed a no-divorce clause they probably wouldn't have included anything but that. But just 5, 6, 7 years later when they were having problems in their marriages that they hadn't even thought of as possibilities. In A's case her husband walked out on her and two children just months after they had purchased a new house which they could barely afford; he said he didn't love A anymore and he wanted a sportscar instead of a mini-van. He'd also agreed to have unprotected sex that could have resulted in pregnancy just days before he left, even though he knew at that point that he was going to leave. A was devastated and for awhile she was sure that he was going to come back (and she had every intention of taking him back); but after a few months he was dating other people and she got used to it and accepted that he'd left her and began making plans for how to move on. Once they began talking about bills and child support and the husband got his own apartment, that was he decided he'd made a mistake and asked her to take him back. She couldn't do it--she said she'd never be able to trust him again. Plus it was only after his new single life went sour and the bills for two different households (she'd been a SAHM) came pouring in that he wanted to come back; what if he was just coming back because it was easier that way?

So A at about 28 years old decided that she wanted a divorce for reasons that at the age of 22 years old she'd never even considered as possibilities. If she had signed a no-divorce clause at age 22 she would have denied her 28 year old self any say whatsoever about getting divorced. My question is, why think that her 22 year old self would be in a better position to make a decision about divorce than her 28 year old self? I mean, the 22 year old self had never even been married--what in the heck could she know about the problems that come up in marriage and how possible it is to overcome them?

 

[Missy Mouse]

OK, we don't love each other anymore, so we smack each other a couple times to get divorced due to abuse. Problem solved. DH would probably claim I verbally abuse him all the time. He's a whiner.



My aunt lives like that and I never could. I spend enough time "living my own life" when DH is deployed that when he's here, I want to live our life. I couldn't live with him day in and day out without wanting to be here with him.

 

[poohandwendy]

NO, the idea is silly.

Maybe you could legally force someone to stay with you due to a signed prenupt contract, but sheesh...is that really what you want?

What benefit comes from a forced marriage?

 

[Missy Mouse]

So A at about 28 years old decided that she wanted a divorce for reasons that at the age of 22 years old she'd never even considered as possibilities. If she had signed a no-divorce clause at age 22 she would have denied her 28 year old self any say whatsoever about getting divorced. My question is, why think that her 22 year old self would be in a better position to make a decision about divorce than her 28 year old self? I mean, the 22 year old self had never even been married--what in the heck could she know about the problems that come up in marriage and how possible it is to overcome them?

Exactly. That's the risk you'd be taking with a no-divorce clause. So ya better be damn sure when you enter into marriage that a) it's the right person, b) you're not rushing it c) you've thought over the possible scenarios like money and debt and how credit cards are used. I bet if a no-divorce clause was mandatory in America most couples would not choose each other to enter into marriage with. If there was no easy way out they wouldn't rush into it. That's the one of the only potential good things I see about a no divorce clause.

 

[poohandwendy]

Exactly. That's the risk you'd be taking with a no-divorce clause. So ya better be damn sure when you enter into marriage that a) it's the right person, b) you're not rushing it c) you've thought over the possible scenarios like money and debt and how credit cards are used. I bet if a no-divorce clause was mandatory in America most couples would not choose each other to enter into marriage with. If there was no easy way out they wouldn't rush into it. That's the one of the only potential good things I see about a no divorce clause.

That would not happen with any more regularity than it does now without such a clause. You cannot make people make smart decisions. The people who would use that carefully thought out logic do so without such a clause. The people who don't wouldn't likely see the negative possibles anyways, so they would read it and say...no problem.

It's sort of like credit cards. Look how many people know what happens if you overextend yourself, yet do it anyways. They start out with good intentions and a legally binding contract, though.

 

[Missy Mouse]

That would not happen with any more regularity than it does now without such a clause. You cannot make people make smart decisions. The people who would use that carefully thought out logic do so without such a clause. The people who don't wouldn't likely see the negative possibles anyways, so they would read it and say...no problem.

It's sort of like credit cards. Look how many people know what happens if you overextend yourself, yet do it anyways. They start out with good intentions and a legally binding contract, though.

That's why a no-divorce clause would never work in America.

 

[Mickeyluver37]

I voted no. I just can't see what purpose this would serve. Dh and I had our fair share of problems to work through, just like any other married couple, and we get through them because we truly love each other and want to work every problem out, not because we "have" to.

And what happens if you have one of these clauses and you simply want out? Are you not allowed? I guess you could always just go cheat or hit your spouse to cancel out the clause, which I'm sure some people would do to get out of it!

 

[rigs32]

A pre-nup is a contract. The ONLY court remedy for violating it is breach of contract. The only thing you could force your ex to do is pay money or give up rights to marital assets. Even then, a court could find that the contract is void for being signed under duress or being unconscionable. You would NEVER go to jail.

As to making it mandatory, it would be unconstitutional. The Due Process clause of the 5th Amendment protects our privacy rights. One of those rights is the right to marry or end a marriage (by divorce or annulment). It's taking away a liberty interest for the person who wants out of the marriage (y'know the US govt can't take away life, liberty, or property without the due process of law)

A lot of people have said lately that there is no good reason to marry anymore. DH and I have to be married. He's in the reserves. If anything were to happen and we were not married, his mother would get a call not me. I need the power that comes with being a spouse.

 

[sunlver]

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?

This was my question as well??? I thought a prenup was in case there was a divorce. So why have a divorce clause and a prenup?

 

[Tasha+Scott]

I hope that I never have to deal with divorce in my lifetime, and I'm sure a good majority of married people feel the same way, but I think a clause like that is just silly. It's a huge no from me!