Then when they get into the real world and have an understanding of how sometimes unbalanced divorce law can be, they are like "wait, how did this happen".
People like you are exactly why people want to sign pre-nups in the first place.
> He made a financial agreement with his wife to share 50-50. That's what a marriage is, it's a legally binding contract.
If it was always clearly cut as a 50-50 split set in stone, there would be no need for as many divorce lawyers.
> And he wants to alter the terms of the deal now, as a post-nup? After years of partnership? Oh hell no.
People want to alter the terms of the deal all the time, a divorce is usually one of those alterations, most frequently initiated by women. After years of partnership. Why this is surprising to anyone is beyond me. Is it really that different in California?
You are correct in one thing though - he probably shouldn't have gotten married to begin with.
Taking HN threads into personal attack is a sure way to make a flamewar worse. Please have the self-control to resist this when commenting here.
As for the GP comment, I can see why it would feel that way but I didn't read it that way myself. There's obviously a lot of interpretation involved in these things.
Generic resentment is impossible to engage with other than ideologically, which leads directly to ideological flamewars, all of which are off topic for Hacker News. If you've read the site guidelines and understand its mandate, it should be easy to see why: such discussions are all the same, and there's no intellectual curiosity in them.
Eww. Do they actually call it that? That's messed up.
Anyhow, nobody is forcing anyone to get married. It's no different from any other contract. If you don't like the terms, don't sign the sheet.
There are no terms on the sheet (marriage licence). State makes up rules as it go.
Last I checked, there was a legislative process that is overseen by elected officials required to change most laws around marriage. You have to sign a contract with the state to get a license and operate a vehicle legally, I don't see people up in arms and refusing to drive because the state can change driving rules. Same with incorporating a company in any given state. You are subject to that state's laws even if they change after you start your company, but you take that risk because you determined that the protections you get from signing that contract is more valuable than the risk from not doing so.
Also, other than legalizing no-fault divorce and expanding marriage to same-sex couples, what are the changes that states could make which are so scary to you? Sharing wealth 50/50 in the case of divorce is not some new thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alimony#United_States
EDIT: With regards to no fault divorce, you might want to take a look at this rather short paper, called "No-Fault Divorce and Rent-Seeking": https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1630462
Except (AFAIK) none of these has ever resulted in 50% of someones wealth/future-wealth/ip being "awarded" to someone else.
> Also, other than legalizing no-fault divorce and expanding marriage to same-sex couples, what are the changes that states could make which are so scary to you?
Beside legislative branch, judiciary also gets to set precedents as it go.
> Sharing wealth 50/50 in the case of divorce is not some new thing.
It was new when first time it happened. Since it could not have been in marriage contract or constitution. It must have been made up by courts.
That aside, my original point stands. You sign a marriage contract and the state legislature can change the terms of the contract without your consent.
2. Could you elaborate? I couldn't understand the point you made. As far as I'm aware you don't sign a contract when you drive a car.
Did you mean to reply to parent comment ?
Thankfully many guys younger than I are waking up to the reality of marriage. Unfortunately my generation was fed the bullshit about "God's plan". The truth of marriage and divorce needs to be communicated to all young men lest we continue to end up broke and unable to see our children.
People are waking up to the fact that marriage may not suit everyone and divorce can be unfair in some cases.
My case in point. My wife cheated on me after a year of marriage but because I was the higher earner I had to give her all the money I earned that year. Not to mention the fact I didn't get any credit for having paid off all of her car loan with pre-martial money.
Are you, like, what, 120 or something? Even Ametica’s (unusually large minority for a first world country, but still) religious fanatics today mostly are extremely pragmatic (arguably, downright libertine) when it comes to the male position with regard to marriage. I don't know what line you may have been fed, but I think you are grossly mischaracterizing any living generation with your generalization.
But he didn't.
And he wants to alter the terms of the deal now, as a post-nup? After years of partnership? Oh hell no.
If I were his wife, I would seriously consider leaving him over this. Walk, with "his" assets that were always his-and-hers.