The case of the proposals actually comes up with two things:1. They say that pre-marriage agreements are bad because the people who make these agreements are not entirely rational.2 And that these kinds of contracts are open to abuse In support of the first point, the sentence states that pre-marriage agreements are made while they are in love, they say that if you are in love, you do not have the same perception and that it gives the same effect, that you are not among your full abilities, which is clearly not able to make decisions. So the sentence says that when people are in love, they are not rational enough to enter into a contract – the pre-nup – but are rational enough to get into another — marriage. We already believe that this is an contradictory statement. The sentence states that pre-nup is a contract that is meant never to be used. That is also what we are questioning. People who would accept a pre-Nup are the kind of people who are actively detached from a system that the state imposes on them and who take matters into their own hands. If they sign a pre-Nup to distribute their assets equitably in the event of a divorce, then they are the kind of people who recognize that a divorce could happen. We therefore come to the conclusion that they are more rational and proactive than those who marry without pre-nips. The second point that the sentence makes is that pre-nups are open to abuse.
They show this using hypothetical examples of how pre-nups can go wrong. However, they do not show that pre-nups are particularly vulnerable to abuse than any other contract. They do not even prove that pre-nups are more open to abuse than the option proposed by the state. We have shown you that pre-nups are not much more open to abuse than the state that divides wealth, as it sees fit. A pre-marriage agreement is a way for people who find that the solution proposed by the state would make them vulnerable to abuse (a wealthy person would have the right to worry about whether his partner is only marrying for money if his estate was split 50/50 in the event of divorce). There is no doubt that changing circumstances can be taken into account. The Sunset provision and other similar provisions used in some places allow pre-nups to be invalidated if certain circumstances change. This shows that we can protect the parties to the agreement from abuse, while leaving the agreement to them.
With respect to the request for mutual consent, yes, that is the point of an agreement on which both parties agree. If one party does not agree to change the terms simply because it wants to abuse the contract, the other party may also have legal protection against this type of abuse. We have resisted the case by showing that the state does not always know the best.2 Pre-marital agreements have advantages for marriageAnd the proposal is that we deprive people of the freedom to conceive an agreement themselves, what they consider to be marriage and how it should end, the proposal states that only the state knows the right conditions of marriage. That is what we are questioning. We have brought a comparison between the two systems and have shown you why optional pre-marriage agreements are beneficial for couples. We have shown that pre-marriage agreements allow for flexibility and specificity so that people receive exactly the kind of protection they consider best for them. People can get legal advice on the aspects of marriage that they need to address specifically in the pre-nup.