Would you ask your future spouse to sign a prenup?? (Poll)

No. I wouldn't.

...because both by choice and inclination, I refuse to give too much power or importance to material wealth.

"It's just stuff." *Believes that statement as one qualifying the importance of prioritizing*


Any of these arguments tend to make me think of the rich young ruler... and how he'd grown to love wealth or prestige or whatever worldly pleasure or privilege it may be ('earned through merit' or not) more than God or being a disciple.

It's not that he didn't love God or want to follow Jesus, but he wasn't willing to comprise his wealth in order to do so. He made his choice, and showed what his priorities were.


There certainly is truth that we want to be good stewards (a teaching out of Genesis), and that we are accountable for what we do with what we're given (parable of the talents, teachings from Luke 16)... but similar to the man in Luke 12 that stored up all his wealth and ultimately lost it and his life...or Jesus teaching in Mark 8 along those same lines...or the explanation for the weeds from the parable of the sower...

It's our sense of gain...our trappings and belonging...our perceived value in things other than God...that ultimately leads to both our and others destruction. Anything that feeds the 'self' or 'flesh' is not usually feeding your spirit. (Good Native American stories along those lines actually about two wolves...)

One of the things Jesus talked about most was wealth, money, value, priorities... seek first the kingdom, love god and one another, store up treasure in heaven...the verses literally go on and on.



...so...all that to say... Whether you sign a prenup or not is up to you, but what's the motivation behind doing so? Is it because you care more for your things than you do people (whether those people be enemies or not)?

1 Tim 6:10 (paraphrased) - The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.

It's not that money or wealth itself is evil, but one's love of it is.

Sounds like an oral prenup. In most cases, prenups are giving credence to the idea that there may be a divorce, which isn't a good sign.

It would be foolish to actually vow to pray together every day. One day, he goes on a business trip and his cell phone dies, and she can claim 'he broke one of his wedding vows' and she would be right.

It is foolish to make a vow it is unlikely that you will be able to keep.

You may be referring to an old Barna poll. If I recall correctly, the percentages were nearly identical and the difference was a little higher on the evangelical side, but not statistically significant.

We need to keep in mind that there are plenty of churches where a preacher won't explain who Jesus is and leave out big parts of the gospel like the crucifixion and resurrection, have people raise their hands and repeat a prayer, and declare them saved. Then some of these people who have not believed the gospel may call themselves 'evangelical' and 'born again' on Barna's surveys.

Billy Graham found that a low percentage of people who come forward at his crusades, where he did preach the cross and mention the resurrection, were involved in church a year later. If I recall correctly, regular church attendees are about 20% less likely to divorce than the rest of the population in the US.


Women don't usually have as much to worry about. The courts usually give the women the kids and bleed the men dry or give shared custody. If the woman is a drug addict, that's an exception.

That kind of thinking sure would have turned me off to marrying someone. I wouldn't have married someone I believed would cheat on me. Making contingency plans for a divorce, IMO, is a bad sign. I'm uber committed to staying married and not divorcing, though. I suspect that the most committed individuals would be the most turned off by these kinds of pre-nups.

IMO, prenups make sense for older couples who combine a prenup as a part of estate planning to make sure it is clear who gets what inheritance. That's planning for death rather than divorce. It also makes sense in very specific cases for legal reasons, for example if spouses are citizens of different countries and one forfeits her rights to own land if he or she doesn't have a pre-nup that addresses this issue.

Wouldn't that be a will, and not a prenup?

A pre-nup may be required to allow property to pass to children rather than a spouse. I'm no expert on this sort of thing. I think another option would be to put assets in a trust before marriage.

No need for a prenup....I was told what's his is mine

I wouldn't ask my future wife to sign a pre nup cause I'd be getting married in faith and I would make sure that her and I are equally yoked and that we both put the Lord Jesus first in our lives and have Him (Jesus) the center of the marriage.

Yes, I would get the pre-nup. Both of my parents are in support of me getting the pre-nup (they did not have prenup).
When my parents got married, he put all of her savings into his accounts to invest; they did not get divorced but she has never like him controling the money and it was a topic of argument. My dad always said it was "our" money but in practice it was not since he had control over the money and ultimate say. During arguments, he would say "his" money. So, my mom is in full support of prenup, and my dad too since he knows how men can be like.

I understand that the image of a pre-nup is about trust but what if it is about clarity? In the case of a second marriage when there are children from the first, you may both want to designate certain things to them, and/or ensure that your property is secure. I know it seems like a will should take care of that but unfortunately in the case of a divorce, when emotions are high, things can become a mess. I would agree to sign one so that the other person knows that I am not with them for their money or property. If they sign one, I can also rest assured that they didn't marry me for my collection of spoons, neon leg warmers or wall mounted singing trout.
I think the fear is that if a pre-nup is brought up it assumes a divorce. That is understandable. Realistically it sets in words the issues of property and money so that they are clear to both people and their families. What a lot of people forget, until they end up in a court of law, is that a marriage is a legal contract and has financial factors involved. I know that that is not romantic. Sadly too many people have to do the mop up afterwards when things fall apart, having assumed the other person would act in their best interest, and it doesn't happen. I know I won't be popular for this point of view but as a former social worker I saw too many dazed and broken people who assumed things would be equitable and they went from a secure life to sitting in the welfare office. OK, I am getting depressing but my view is that a pre-nup is just a way to put into writing the understanding that both people have about their finances for any future they might encounter. It is practical. (And just so you know, for the right fellow, I am negotiable on the spoons. )

No to prenup because:

The Holy Covenant of Marriage is a declaration of ONE FLESH. The two have become ONE.
It is not a real marriage if you are not one in both liabilities and assets.

If you really want to protect your assets from being split with your mate if you divorce some day, then don't get married.

Divorce should not be an option.

It is best if divorce will cost you half of your wealth, that might be a good deterrent from ever entertaining the idea when you are going through a rough patch.

Whoever invests their entire life into your happiness has earned right to half the assets.

If the man is wealthy and the woman marries him that should be part of her joy in getting married to that particular person. One of the benefits.
If the woman is wealthy and the man marries her that should be part of his joy in getting married to that particular person. One of the benefits.

No one should feel guilty for being glad about marrying into wealth. The idea of a prenup suggest that you want your mate to adopt an apologetic mindset toward your financial success rather than rejoicing with you and being an equal recipient of the rewards of your success. That they must always be careful not to be crossing any lines of thinking they have any access to THAT part of your life. It is not being One.

And as a man aren't you supposed to be working and building up financial wealth to offer to a bride? Isn't that the point of having a house and finances ready before you propose?

You had me with "wall mounted singing trout"

hmm,
dont know much about it but...does it depend on who is the richer party at the beginning of the marriage as to who signs what, or is it a mutual agreement.

The OP mentioned someone who was poor, and was going to marry. would it be different if she was rich, because then wouldn she be the one asking her fiance.

My take on it is...if you have retirement savings and decided to signed up for that (in my country, its called kiwisaver) then its your own decision to have individual savings for when you turn 65 and really nothing to do with your spouse. I think then that takes the pressure off marrying for money and its also dependent on how much you are going to put aside from when you work. You could choose not to of course and just wing it but I think if you break up a marriage it all gets messy over who gets what. I would think you just split up assets you built up together but you cant just split a house in two by selling it off and each having half the money if one of you had bought it BEFORE you married I suppose.

I am supposing some people are marrying each other for their wall singing trout? Or half of one?
Maybe they got used to living with the wall-singing trout that they just couldnt live without one after they split.

Never... two become one in Gods eyes and should be unconditional. If one wants a prenup... that’s a red flag.

does the prenup only count if the couple splits up, does it still count if one party dies. Im a bit confused.
And also what happens to the children do they get a prenup too if they dont behave, or do they just get cut out of the family.

I think every situation is unique. In a perfect world with perfect people they would be unnecessary. However in the one we live there are scammers, users, cheaters, abusers, psychos and sociopaths. Who you think you are marrying isn’t always obvious at the alter. I say what you have prior to marriage should be protected and everything aquired during the marriage shared, even if one person is the soul provider earning millions. When two become one their achievements are collective.

To me it really depends on the person. If shes very needy and wants me to be the provider, i would not because she might be in it for the money. If shes more liberal and is very supportive and we gel well together and i have a friend for life then i guess i would let her have money if we split up. It really depends, i cannot say yes or no entirely.

Goal should be marry who you want to be with for life... unconditionally. If not, don’t marry her.