It sure is, but most of the terms are determined by law and not made explicit. They have often favored women financially. An explicit prenup is just good sense.
@@sined9000 I get what you mean. But those who go through divorce find themselves held to laws as binding as any contract. The only difference is terms are not made explicit until the contract is dissolved. Couples might skip the license and have a religious or civil ceremony.
Exactly. Family Law anticipates your marriage to fail too. Signing the MC takes it out of your hands what happens. Nobody knows what laws, societal norms and what idiot judge they will get. Better to draw up your own contract.
I'll never forget what a female friend had said to me about prenups when I was in highschool almost 35 years ago. She and her sisters lived with her Dad and he ran his own business. She came up to us one day as we were waiting for the bus and straight up warned us guys; 'Get a prenup, not matter what!! If she loves you she'll understand.' I later found out that her mother had divorced her Dad and was raking him over the coals. Just an FYI, he had custody of all three of his kids. The older ones where above 14, and the youngest was under 10. What else can I say?
"You want me to sign a pre-nup?" "No I want both of us to sign a pre-nup." BTW, guys and girls a marriage with a marriage license IS a legal contract. Having explicit terms in writing is just plain good sense. Those 50% of marriages that end in divorce involved people who planned on a lifetime forever.
State Marriage Lifense in US is not true marriage The Myth of the State Marriage License: Why Legal Contracts Have No Bearing on True Marriage Marriage has existed for millennia as a profound bond between individuals-a commitment of love, partnership, and shared purpose. Historically, marriage was defined by cultural, spiritual, or community norms, not by legal mandates. However, in the modern United States, the state marriage license has been elevated as the supposed hallmark of a “real” marriage, despite its spiritual and historical irrelevance. This essay will explore why state marriage licenses are not only unnecessary but also undermine the authenticity of marital commitment, ultimately arguing that true marriage exists beyond government contracts. What Is Marriage? The Historical and Spiritual Context For most of human history, marriage was a personal or community-sanctioned union. Ancient societies, from Mesopotamia to tribal cultures, often recognized marriage as a covenant or partnership defined by mutual commitments and societal rituals. These unions were rooted in family, faith, and culture-not legal documents. The concept of government-regulated marriage is a relatively modern development. In the U.S., marriage licenses became common only in the 19th century. They were originally tools of state control, often used to enforce discriminatory practices, such as prohibiting interracial marriages. This history demonstrates that the state’s involvement in marriage was not about love, commitment, or spirituality but about power and regulation. At its core, marriage is an agreement between individuals, not an agreement between a couple and a government. Authentic marriage is built on trust, mutual respect, and shared values. Historically, no legal framework was required for two people to declare their devotion and create a life together. What Is a State Marriage License Really? A state marriage license is not a sacred or personal bond-it is a legal contract that gives the state authority over your relationship. By signing this document, couples effectively hand over control of their marriage to the government, allowing the state to dictate terms regarding property, divorce, and even personal behavior. Consider these facts about state marriage licenses: 1. Varying State Laws: Each state has its own marriage laws, which can change at any time. A marriage contracted in one state is subject to different rules if a spouse moves to another state. For instance, a community property state may divide assets differently in a divorce than an equitable distribution state, creating uncertainty about marital agreements. 2. Potential for State Overreach: In theory, states could impose extreme laws governing marriage, such as: • Outlawing divorce or restricting relocation during marriage. • Mandating childbearing within specific timeframes. • Requiring physical intimacy, with fines or penalties for non-compliance. • Forcing spouses to financially support each other indefinitely, regardless of circumstances. 3. Shifting Terms: By signing a marriage license, couples agree to abide by current and future laws governing marriage. This means the state can change the rules mid-marriage, fundamentally altering the terms without the couple’s consent. Such possibilities highlight how a state marriage license is less a personal commitment and more a surrender of autonomy to the government. The Contradiction of Commitment Under State Control Marriage is often described as a commitment-a promise to love, honor, and support one another. However, a state marriage license undermines this promise by introducing a third party (the government) into the relationship. How can a couple truly commit to one another when their agreement is subject to state interference? For example, if one spouse relocates to a state with vastly different marriage laws, the terms of their marriage could shift dramatically. A couple married in a state with no-fault divorce laws might find themselves subject to “at-fault” divorce penalties in another. This variability demonstrates how the state license prevents couples from making binding, personal promises to each other. Moreover, the state has the power to modify marriage laws in ways that could undermine a couple’s original intentions. Imagine a scenario where a state imposes new requirements, such as mandatory childbearing or restrictions on divorce. Such laws would violate the personal and spiritual commitments made by the couple, proving that a state-regulated marriage is inherently unstable. The Alternative: Private and Authentic Marriage A true marriage is a private commitment between two people, sometimes within the context of a spiritual or community framework. Couples can create their own marriage agreements-tailored to their values and priorities-without involving the state. Private marriage agreements can include: • Mutual commitments: Written vows or contracts outlining the couple’s promises to each other. • Financial arrangements: Clear terms for property division, financial support, or other economic concerns, avoiding the unpredictability of state divorce courts. • Symbolic ceremonies: Weddings officiated by spiritual leaders, family members, or trusted friends, without the need for a government-issued license. Couples can also change their names, present themselves as married, and enjoy the social recognition of marriage without a state license. Legally, no one can determine whether a couple has a state-recognized marriage simply by observing their relationship. Why a State Marriage License Is Worthless A state marriage license does not enhance the authenticity or validity of a marriage. Instead, it: • Hands control to the government: Couples surrender their autonomy to state lawmakers, who can alter marriage terms at will. • Creates instability: Different state laws make it impossible for couples to have a consistent, reliable agreement. • Undermines personal commitment: True commitment requires freedom of choice-not submission to a third-party authority. Historically, marriage existed long before governments began issuing licenses. It was a deeply personal and spiritual union, defined by the couple and their community. State-regulated marriage, by contrast, is a recent phenomenon that reduces marriage to a legal construct, stripping it of its emotional and spiritual essence. Conclusion The authenticity of marriage lies in the promises made between two people-not in a government-issued contract. By avoiding state marriage licenses, couples can preserve the integrity of their commitments and avoid the pitfalls of state interference. Marriage should be a bond of love, trust, and shared purpose-not a legal agreement subject to the whims of lawmakers. Choosing a private marriage allows couples to honor the historical and spiritual significance of their union while safeguarding their autonomy. In doing so, they uphold the true meaning of marriage-uncompromised by state control.
@lescish In today's shifting moods on loyalty and fidelity, I dont care if your a 9-5 working stiff of a hight dollar CEO. Getting married w/o a prenuptial is pure insanity. With divorce rates as high as they are you'd be a fool not to cover and protect yourself. This goes for both men and woman.
I wish I would have had the insight to recognize the great divide between who I thought my ex-wife could be and the reality of who she actually was. It would have saved me a lot of wasted time.
Every man who enters into marriage will sign some sort of Prenuptial Agreement; either by default or intent. The default prenup is called Family Law. If no prenup is estalished before marriage, then everything is settled through Family Court System (all assets split 50/50). With a prenup, you can at least protect most, but not all, of what one party brought into the marriage. The only way to avoid a prenup is not to get married.
Why is it so difficult for all women to get extremely upset about prenups when if they have any common sense they can see it for what it actually is just another piece of paper to go along with the other contract that being the marriage certificate. It is a legal contract that you both enter into , if she doesn’t see it that way then tell her it is off the table and she doesn’t need to sign it and he doesn’t have to have a certificate they can just live together
Marriage is a contract, a prenup is a contract; what`s the issue? Just have a wedding without signing anything, a declaration of love in front of family and friends; not as problem, right?
Its a story. Yes. But such refusal also happen in real life. Heck....why is there a need for marriage certificate at all? You seems to be a woman....so, let me ask u the question similar thats ask in whatever podcast. Why should a guy marry a woman, whats the advantage for him?
It's interesting that everything about this woman is the exact opposite of true feminism, and this is reflected in almost all modern women today. They talk about freedom, independence and equality, all the while sitting in the homes their husbands pay the lions share of, while keeping their earnings to themselves. For decades, we subscribed to the "Happy wife, happy life." motto that has turned women into absolute monsters, who put %10 effort into any relationship, but expect %110 in return.
@BLEH2911 The best definition of a modern day feminists I ever heard came from a woman. "Modern day feminist are two headed snakes. They want the perceived power of a man the privilege of a woman and the responsibility of neither." Then you have the Schrodinger feminists. They are both oppressed and empowered simultaneously and the state they choose to exhibit or exist in depends on which benefits them most at that particular moment.
He is absolutely correct. Love is not enough. Love without trust and respect doesn't work.
Loyalty.
Why many folks keep forgetting about loyalty.
Its the foundation of all.
@@eleethtahgra7182 loyalty and love are built on trust. Imo Trust is the bedrock all else is built on.
The best way to avoid or dissolve a relationship with a feminist is to expect her to live up to her rhetoric.
Does she not know a marriage certificate is a LEGAL CONTRACT
It sure is, but most of the terms are determined by law and not made explicit. They have often favored women financially. An explicit prenup is just good sense.
A marriage license is not an actual contract. Marriage is more of a covenant. In contract law, marriage would be seen as an Illusionary Promise.
@@sined9000 I get what you mean. But those who go through divorce find themselves held to laws as binding as any contract. The only difference is terms are not made explicit until the contract is dissolved. Couples might skip the license and have a religious or civil ceremony.
Exactly. Family Law anticipates your marriage to fail too. Signing the MC takes it out of your hands what happens. Nobody knows what laws, societal norms and what idiot judge they will get.
Better to draw up your own contract.
@@sined9000
A person once said: You never divorce the same person you married.
hmmm, she wants to protect her exit strategy. Its all about equality until she wants to grab the bag on the way out.
She wanted equality until it came time for her to put forth an equal effort and financial commitment.
but its her emotional labor that really maters......🤣
Don't say you want you equality if you don't really want equality
She was a brokey with pride 😂😂
With what 😂😂😂
I'll never forget what a female friend had said to me about prenups when I was in highschool almost 35 years ago. She and her sisters lived with her Dad and he ran his own business. She came up to us one day as we were waiting for the bus and straight up warned us guys; 'Get a prenup, not matter what!! If she loves you she'll understand.' I later found out that her mother had divorced her Dad and was raking him over the coals.
Just an FYI, he had custody of all three of his kids. The older ones where above 14, and the youngest was under 10. What else can I say?
Protection is totally necessary in every type of relationship. Its an insurance policy!
Loved him in her own way? She means she loved using him.
Then why get married with a legal contract. It is a safety net for women who fall out of love or change their mind years down the road
By her logic if you buy car insurance its means you're planning to have an accident
"You want me to sign a pre-nup?" "No I want both of us to sign a pre-nup."
BTW, guys and girls a marriage with a marriage license IS a legal contract. Having explicit terms in writing is just plain good sense. Those 50% of marriages that end in divorce involved people who planned on a lifetime forever.
State Marriage Lifense in US is not true marriage
The Myth of the State Marriage License: Why Legal Contracts Have No Bearing on True Marriage
Marriage has existed for millennia as a profound bond between individuals-a commitment of love, partnership, and shared purpose. Historically, marriage was defined by cultural, spiritual, or community norms, not by legal mandates. However, in the modern United States, the state marriage license has been elevated as the supposed hallmark of a “real” marriage, despite its spiritual and historical irrelevance. This essay will explore why state marriage licenses are not only unnecessary but also undermine the authenticity of marital commitment, ultimately arguing that true marriage exists beyond government contracts.
What Is Marriage? The Historical and Spiritual Context
For most of human history, marriage was a personal or community-sanctioned union. Ancient societies, from Mesopotamia to tribal cultures, often recognized marriage as a covenant or partnership defined by mutual commitments and societal rituals. These unions were rooted in family, faith, and culture-not legal documents.
The concept of government-regulated marriage is a relatively modern development. In the U.S., marriage licenses became common only in the 19th century. They were originally tools of state control, often used to enforce discriminatory practices, such as prohibiting interracial marriages. This history demonstrates that the state’s involvement in marriage was not about love, commitment, or spirituality but about power and regulation.
At its core, marriage is an agreement between individuals, not an agreement between a couple and a government. Authentic marriage is built on trust, mutual respect, and shared values. Historically, no legal framework was required for two people to declare their devotion and create a life together.
What Is a State Marriage License Really?
A state marriage license is not a sacred or personal bond-it is a legal contract that gives the state authority over your relationship. By signing this document, couples effectively hand over control of their marriage to the government, allowing the state to dictate terms regarding property, divorce, and even personal behavior.
Consider these facts about state marriage licenses:
1. Varying State Laws: Each state has its own marriage laws, which can change at any time. A marriage contracted in one state is subject to different rules if a spouse moves to another state. For instance, a community property state may divide assets differently in a divorce than an equitable distribution state, creating uncertainty about marital agreements.
2. Potential for State Overreach: In theory, states could impose extreme laws governing marriage, such as:
• Outlawing divorce or restricting relocation during marriage.
• Mandating childbearing within specific timeframes.
• Requiring physical intimacy, with fines or penalties for non-compliance.
• Forcing spouses to financially support each other indefinitely, regardless of circumstances.
3. Shifting Terms: By signing a marriage license, couples agree to abide by current and future laws governing marriage. This means the state can change the rules mid-marriage, fundamentally altering the terms without the couple’s consent.
Such possibilities highlight how a state marriage license is less a personal commitment and more a surrender of autonomy to the government.
The Contradiction of Commitment Under State Control
Marriage is often described as a commitment-a promise to love, honor, and support one another. However, a state marriage license undermines this promise by introducing a third party (the government) into the relationship. How can a couple truly commit to one another when their agreement is subject to state interference?
For example, if one spouse relocates to a state with vastly different marriage laws, the terms of their marriage could shift dramatically. A couple married in a state with no-fault divorce laws might find themselves subject to “at-fault” divorce penalties in another. This variability demonstrates how the state license prevents couples from making binding, personal promises to each other.
Moreover, the state has the power to modify marriage laws in ways that could undermine a couple’s original intentions. Imagine a scenario where a state imposes new requirements, such as mandatory childbearing or restrictions on divorce. Such laws would violate the personal and spiritual commitments made by the couple, proving that a state-regulated marriage is inherently unstable.
The Alternative: Private and Authentic Marriage
A true marriage is a private commitment between two people, sometimes within the context of a spiritual or community framework. Couples can create their own marriage agreements-tailored to their values and priorities-without involving the state.
Private marriage agreements can include:
• Mutual commitments: Written vows or contracts outlining the couple’s promises to each other.
• Financial arrangements: Clear terms for property division, financial support, or other economic concerns, avoiding the unpredictability of state divorce courts.
• Symbolic ceremonies: Weddings officiated by spiritual leaders, family members, or trusted friends, without the need for a government-issued license.
Couples can also change their names, present themselves as married, and enjoy the social recognition of marriage without a state license. Legally, no one can determine whether a couple has a state-recognized marriage simply by observing their relationship.
Why a State Marriage License Is Worthless
A state marriage license does not enhance the authenticity or validity of a marriage. Instead, it:
• Hands control to the government: Couples surrender their autonomy to state lawmakers, who can alter marriage terms at will.
• Creates instability: Different state laws make it impossible for couples to have a consistent, reliable agreement.
• Undermines personal commitment: True commitment requires freedom of choice-not submission to a third-party authority.
Historically, marriage existed long before governments began issuing licenses. It was a deeply personal and spiritual union, defined by the couple and their community. State-regulated marriage, by contrast, is a recent phenomenon that reduces marriage to a legal construct, stripping it of its emotional and spiritual essence.
Conclusion
The authenticity of marriage lies in the promises made between two people-not in a government-issued contract. By avoiding state marriage licenses, couples can preserve the integrity of their commitments and avoid the pitfalls of state interference. Marriage should be a bond of love, trust, and shared purpose-not a legal agreement subject to the whims of lawmakers.
Choosing a private marriage allows couples to honor the historical and spiritual significance of their union while safeguarding their autonomy. In doing so, they uphold the true meaning of marriage-uncompromised by state control.
@lescish In today's shifting moods on loyalty and fidelity, I dont care if your a 9-5 working stiff of a hight dollar CEO. Getting married w/o a prenuptial is pure insanity. With divorce rates as high as they are you'd be a fool not to cover and protect yourself. This goes for both men and woman.
If love has no price tag and trust is unconditional then why does she not sign a Power of Attorney in his favour to show how much she trust him?
Everybody wants a quality until it's time to practice what you preach😂😂😂😂
That's EXACTLY what a marriage is - a legally binding CONTRACT.
She doesn't want a legal arrangement? Then don't get married.
People don’t seem to understand that a marriage license is a business contract, so why would it be different for that and then a marriage prenup?
I wish I would have had the insight to recognize the great divide between who I thought my ex-wife could be and the reality of who she actually was. It would have saved me a lot of wasted time.
Why is she so butt hurt makes sense to me😂
Every man who enters into marriage will sign some sort of Prenuptial Agreement; either by default or intent. The default prenup is called Family Law. If no prenup is estalished before marriage, then everything is settled through Family Court System (all assets split 50/50). With a prenup, you can at least protect most, but not all, of what one party brought into the marriage. The only way to avoid a prenup is not to get married.
Why is it so difficult for all women to get extremely upset about prenups when if they have any common sense they can see it for what it actually is just another piece of paper to go along with the other contract that being the marriage certificate. It is a legal contract that you both enter into , if she doesn’t see it that way then tell her it is off the table and she doesn’t need to sign it and he doesn’t have to have a certificate they can just live together
Except of course for places where common law exists, wherein cohabitation can be the same as marriage without a prenup.
She was a brokey with an ego
She brings "emotional labor".... LOL Try paying the rent with that. She left and all his bills were the same.
Marriage is a contract, a prenup is a contract; what`s the issue? Just have a wedding without signing anything, a declaration of love in front of family and friends; not as problem, right?
The protagonist is ever Ethan.
Personally, I believe prenatal agreements should be mandatory in all marriages. Two signatures: 1. Marriage Certificate; 2. Prenatal Agreement
Prenatal is something to do with babies... I get what you mean but prenuptial is the actual thing you meant to write
Why are the women in these stories so weak and depending on men. There is nothing wrong with prenuptial. Women need to learn to earn more.
I didn’t see it as dependent on men
I saw it as manipulative laziness
Are you new to female entitlement
Its a story. Yes.
But such refusal also happen in real life.
Heck....why is there a need for marriage certificate at all?
You seems to be a woman....so, let me ask u the question similar thats ask in whatever podcast.
Why should a guy marry a woman, whats the advantage for him?
I see it as "Your money is my money, but my money is my money"
It's interesting that everything about this woman is the exact opposite of true feminism, and this is reflected in almost all modern women today. They talk about freedom, independence and equality, all the while sitting in the homes their husbands pay the lions share of, while keeping their earnings to themselves. For decades, we subscribed to the "Happy wife, happy life." motto that has turned women into absolute monsters, who put %10 effort into any relationship, but expect %110 in return.
@BLEH2911 The best definition of a modern day feminists I ever heard came from a woman. "Modern day feminist are two headed snakes. They want the perceived power of a man the privilege of a woman and the responsibility of neither."
Then you have the Schrodinger feminists. They are both oppressed and empowered simultaneously and the state they choose to exhibit or exist in depends on which benefits them most at that particular moment.