GS: Under those tax restrictions, I can definitely see why the "legal contract" form of marriage would make a lot of sense. And what I like about how you've presented it is that it's exactly that. As opposed to a lot of couples who get married for financial reasons, and then proceed as though the marriage itself has given them some kind of skills or status that will somehow protect them, so they don't have to work on their relationship continually... then they're astonished when the love disappears and they want a divorce.
Originally Posted by saudade
IMO, marrying couples of any lovestyle with any real funds to speak of need to get a prenup, just so that both sides have to have a conversation about how they both feel about the money they have, and to keep their expectations together.
I can see this point as a "legislative" argument to force couples to have prenups... I've read that money is the #1 thing couples argue about.
In that sense, I'm somewhat a fan of some of the churches which make their members take marriage courses before allowing them to wed. I'm not normally a fan of churches, but that's one thing that makes some sense.
So ironically, my stance is that "I don't want a prenup for my relationship, but I believe it would be good to legislatively require them." Because if it was required, then I wouldn't feel like doing such a thing meant I didn't believe in my relationship (which is how I feel). We had those talks [about finances and kids and future career plans etc] of our own volition. People definitely should be having those important conversations before making such a commitment, and if it takes a law to make them do it, then so be it.