Spend More Time talking About The Relationship, and Less Money on the Ring, the Wedding (and the Divorce?)

An Emory University study suggests that there is an inverse correlation between the amount a couple spends on the engagement ring and the wedding, and the chance that the marriage will last.  I have my own theories about why this correlation may exist, but it does re-emphasize my "sermon" about pre-marital planning.  While sitting down and talking about what you intend in the marriage, financially, emotionally, and spiritually, isn't as romantic as picking a ring, or a wedding venue, it's a lot more critical to your long-term marital happiness.

If You're Going To Get Married, Please Do It Correctly

This new case from New York stands for the (reasonably obvious?)  proposition that if you scrupulously avoid doing any of those things which would cause you to have a valid marriage, then you're not married, even if you have a big elaborate "wedding",  presided over by an internet-ordained "clergyperson", who also fails to do any of those things.

The take-away, for me, is the Court's observation that  "getting married is a serious decision that has wide ranging and often everlasting consequences."   Those who follow this blog have heard me preach, almost incessantly, that folks getting married should treat the decision just this way.  Certainly those who go out of their way to disregard and sidestep both the civil and religious requirements for the process shouldn't generally be allowed to change their minds about their seriousness, even after the big party is over.

The usual hat tip to Howard Friedman at Religion Clause.

"Coupling" and "Uncoupling", Conscious Or Not

“Conscious Uncoupling” is the most recent "flavor of the month”  to be launched into the popular terminology and fashion in divorce, following on the heels of “Integrative divorce”, “collaborative divorce”, and  the division of “mediation” among “transformative”, “evaluative”, “facilitative”, and “adjudicative” mediation.

Leaving aside for a moment some of the more eccentric and New-Age-y thoughts* of the authors from whom Ms. Paltrow drew the phrase, the term suggests, as the other bookend, “conscious coupling”.  That is a concept which I have been advocating and will advocate as long as I continue to have folks willing to listen to, or read, my thoughts on the subject. **

Those who’ve read this blog know that I believe and advocate that the closest someone about to marry can get to a policy of “marriage insurance” is making sure that both spouses-to-be have the same understanding and expectations of “the Deal”, the contract they sign on for when they say “I do”.     Competent financial planners, when interviewing married potential clients, routinely ask both spouses to separately answer questions about financial philosophy, risk aversion, etc., and this occasionally uncovers widely divergent views, often to their clients’ dismay.  Likewise, clergy whom I respect, regardless of denomination, often will want, before performing a wedding for their congregants,   to have a serious pastoral discussion with them about their mutual understanding of their “covenant” (which is just an old word for a contract.)

If there’s more “Conscious Coupling”, there’ll probably be less “uncoupling”, conscious or otherwise.


             * “The creation of insects was a failed attempt by nature to evolve a higher form of consciousness”, “Anthroposophic Medicine” and my favorite,  “The misunderstandings involved in divorce also have much to do with the lack of intercourse between our own internal masculine and feminine energies. Choosing to hide within an endoskeleton and remain in attack mode requires a great imbalance of masculine energy. ” This latter is obviously intended to assist those who have considered developing an exoskeleton to hide in when they get divorced; Paging Gregor Samsa....

**Just passed my 25th anniversary, so I claim some personal, as well as professional expertise.

"That Magic Moment", Revisited (A Belated Valentine's Day Post)

       While the legal wrangling over same-sex marriage continues apace (see my next post) as the economy looks like it may be improving, the divorce rate seems to be edging up again. 

  

            ....and why is this seemingly depressing thought in a Valentine's Day post?  

         Because I really want starry-eyed folks  (music swells, here, please)  to have successful marriages.  How to come as close as possible to guaranteeing it?  Talk to each other BEFORE the deal is struck.  If you and that special someone need to change the "marriage contract" to meet YOUR needs and expectations, then, whether you're eighteen or eighty*,  the time for that conversation is BEFORE you "sign on the dotted line"**. 

* Belated tip of the purple and gold,  Fat Tuesday fedora  (from Meyer The Hatter) to Randy Kessler for the pointers.

**those who've followed this space for a while know that my paternal grandfather remarried at 75, after being widowed, and was happily married on the day he died; my father remarried at 79 after my mom died, and was happily married until he passed last year.

Are You and Your Fiancee Working From The Same Blueprint? The Pre-Nup Conversation as Marriage Insurance

Over at Gitlin Law Blog, Illinois family law attorney Joe Gitlin muses that marriages break down when (to use a metaphor which dates both him and me) the spouses aren't "building from the same blueprint".

This is consistent with my take: the crux of the decision to divorce isn't usually specifically about money, or sex, or intimacy, it's that moment, a year, a decade, four decades into the marriage, when one spouse says "This ISN'T the deal I thought I signed on for!"

I consult with folks frequently about whether they need, or want, a pre-marital agreement. The first part of that conversation explores whether the client, and the spouse-to-be, have ever talked seriously about the sorts of things that a pre-marital agreement might address: who's going to control the money? Are both spouses going to have accounts for "their own" money, and a joint "pot" out of which they'll pay joint expenses? Is the plan that one spouse will work, and the other will be a stay-at-home parent for a number of years? If one owns a house, what's the other's expectation as to what's going to happen with that house after the marriage?

Even if folks are okay with the "off-the-shelf" marriage contract, if they understand it, and each understands in advance what the other's expectations are, the chances that they'll manage a lasting marriage are increased.

With all respect to my friends in the floral, couture, and catering industries, marriage planning's less romantic, but more important than wedding planning, and almost nothing is less romantic than divorce court...

Prenups On The Way Up For Boomers

...or so says the Wall Street Journal.

Possible explanations (none exclusive, and none clearly verifiable) include:

that boomers divorce more frequently, and live longer, than their parents, and thus have a higher rate of re-marriage;

or that our lives are simply overwhelmed by fear of litigation; or

that the financial crisis has simply taken some of the romance out of romance.

. . . and apparently the Australians, who've only had pre-marital agreements recognized for about the last decade, are way ahead of the U.S., with a recent report saying that ten percent of couples are using them.

Pre-Nups: "Not Romantic", but more romantic than divorce!

On the upswing, says USA Today.