VIEWPOINTS

[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]

[av_heading heading=’Prenuptial agreement’ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=” subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=”]
BY OSCAR CRUZ
[/av_heading]

[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=”]
SEPARATION before union: This is the realistic way of understanding a man and a woman already separating their assets – their respective possessions, temporal assets, individual holdings – even before they actually become united or have their nuptials in fact.

Such a practice has been long since a standard observance in countries where marriage is but a temporary option and where divorce between married couples happens as a matter of course.

The said standard practice of “dividing before uniting” is customarily observed among peoples where just as consent is the cause in marriage, so is dissent the premise of divorce – with the ex-husband and ex-wife concerned remaining the same as far as their respective material holdings or individual temporal possessions are concerned.

This mind-set and pursuant practice in terms of the said “agreement” makes marriage practical but not real, makes temporal wealth more important than spousal union and already prepares the couples to part ways even before they are in fact wedded.

The more common assumptions of such an agreement are the following:

* One, that either or both of parties concerned are rather wealthy and find it convenient to already have their respective possessions well-determined and officially assigned to each of them even before they actually get married.

* Two, that marriage is subject to consent which can be given and then withdrawn according to the will or option of either or both the parties therein.

* Three, that assets in terms of cash and/or kind are definitely more relevant and important than marriage so it is but just and fair that just as it is easy to get married, it cannot but be also easy to get unmarried.

* Four, it is rather incongruous to claim that mere mortals may be realistically bound to something – like marriage – said to be always and forever once it is opted by mere mortals who come one day and go any day thereafter.

* Five, it is wherefore but a dictate of logic and the acceptance of reality that as someone may change his or her mind, the same may also change his or her spouse while keeping what the same already has before in fact getting married.

What is marriage in truth and in fact?

Marriage is a covenant – a pact, a pledge, an oath, a vow, a bond – through which a man and a woman establish a partnership of life that is ordered for their well-being and for the care of their children.

A covenant is definitely not something that is on and off, not anything that done and undone, as some kind of an uncommitted commitment. So it is that marriage is definitely not for those who cannot or do not keep their word, those who say something but instead do something else – those who do not really believe in the objective what and hhy of marriage.

As to the usual claim that a man and a woman get married because of love, it is not only right but also mandatory to point out that there is a whale of a difference between loving someone and loving oneself. The former makes someone give himself or herself to another whereas genuine love is altruistic. The latter takes someone for himself/herself because false love is egoistic. This is why marriage is definitely for the altruistic – certainly not for the egoistic. And this is why marriage is “for better or worst” – not for the better only but also for the worst.

In essence, “prenuptial agreement” is in blunt preparation for or in pessimistic anticipation of the worst./PN
[/av_textblock]

[/av_one_full]