Pauline Hanson: newlyweds should have pre-nuptial agreements

[silverharp]

Workable? a positive move forward in the age of equality? I don't know what the particular issues are in Australia but it looks like their family courts are backed up and decisions can take years which I assume leaves people in limbo. Presumably there would be less need to enrich blood sucking lawyers and take up the good time of judges more than is necessary.



Pauline Hanson blueprint for Australia: If One Nation leader were PM

Pauline Hanson has outlined her blueprint for Australia, which would include forcing newlyweds to have pre-nuptial agreements and changes to the tax system.

“Family law is high on my agenda. It needs court-approved premarital agreements on finance and parental issues,” she told the Sunday Mail.

The One Nation leader said under her vision for a “better Australia,” she would, she was Prime Minister, also cut the number of politicians, limit migration, introduce an Australian identity card, and axe the GST and consider a flat two per cent tax rate.

She would also set up a royal commission into Islam.

Senator Hanson said one of her priorities was changing the family law system to ease the burden on the courts. She would force couples into pre-nuptial agreements outlining how they would deal with their children and assets if a relationship broke down.

 

[former wesleyan]

Blueprint for a racist Australia.

 

[Betson]

Mandatory pre nuptial agreements are a good idea , it would ease the burden on the courts.

 

[Roll_On]

Mandatory pre nuptial agreements are a good idea , it would ease the burden on the courts.

ease the money train for the parasites also.

 

[silverharp]

Blueprint for a racist Australia.

just the fact ma'am, just the facts!

 

[Cellachán Chaisil]

Wouldn't it undermine the insitution of marriage which is supposed to be about the pooling of resources for the spouses' (or their offspring's) mutual benefit?

Isn't that the whole bloody point? If you have at the end what you had at the start, why bother marrying at all?

 

[silverharp]

Wouldn't it undermine the insitution of marriage which is supposed to be about the pooling of resources for the spouses' (or their offspring's) mutual benefit?

Isn't that the whole bloody point? If you have at the end what you had at the start, why bother marrying at all?

it was on the basis that the institution was socially or legally difficult to get out of. If statistically it becomes a temporary arrangement then it ceases to become an automatic welfare system funded by one of the parties if the arrangement ends

 

[GDPR]

My gut reaction to this is that the idea is incredibly creepy.

My second reaction is that everything should be covered in your marriage vows anyway and if you are not being sincere about them than you should not get married in the first place.

 

[silverharp]

My gut reaction to this is that the idea is incredibly creepy.

My second reaction is that everything should be covered in your marriage vows anyway and if you are not being sincere about them than you should not get married in the first place.

Here are the wedding vows of Ming the Merciless to the captive Earthling, Dale Arden:

Priest: Do you, Ming the Merciless, Ruler of the Universe take this Earthling, Dale Arden to be your Empress of the hour?
Ming: (pause) of the hour, Yes.
Priest: Do you promise to use her as you will?
Ming: (pause, then very slyly) Certainly!
Priest: Not to blast her into space?
Ming: (silence)
Priest: ....Until such time as you get the whim....?
Ming: I do.
Dale: I DO NOT!!

 

[Mitsui2]

Wouldn't it undermine the insitution of marriage which is supposed to be about the pooling of resources for the spouses' (or their offspring's) mutual benefit?

Isn't that the whole bloody point? If you have at the end what you had at the start, why bother marrying at all?

"Events, dear boy, events" (to quote a man who was married to an adulterous wife for 30-odd years!).

Just because you're pretty sure the plane won't fall is not in itself a reason not to take out travel insurance.

Me & mrs M did a pre-nup nearly thirty years ago now. We'd completely forgotten it till we came across it while clearing out old papers lately. We had a great evening quoting bits of it to one another and laughing our heads off.

Anyway, didn't we have enough of the whole "undermine the institution of marriage" stuff only too recently?

 

[Mitsui2]

Here are the wedding vows of Ming the Merciless to the captive Earthling, Dale Arden:

Priest: Do you, Ming the Merciless, Ruler of the Universe take this Earthling, Dale Arden to be your Empress of the hour?
Ming: (pause) of the hour, Yes.
Priest: Do you promise to use her as you will?
Ming: (pause, then very slyly) Certainly!
Priest: Not to blast her into space?
Ming: (silence)
Priest: ....Until such time as you get the whim....?
Ming: I do.
Dale: I DO NOT!!

Ah, even Romance isn't what it used to be, is it?

 

[silverharp]

"Events, dear boy, events" (to quote a man who was married to an adulterous wife for 30-odd years!).

Just because you're pretty sure the plane won't fall is not in itself a reason not to take out travel insurance.

Me & mrs M did a pre-nup nearly thirty years ago now. We'd completely forgotten it till we came across it while clearing out old papers lately. We had a great evening quoting bits of it to one another and laughing our heads off.

Anyway, didn't we have enough of the whole "undermine the institution of marriage" stuff only too recently?

would it have had any legal standing? one tends to hear that the courts rip them apart anyway

 

[Cellachán Chaisil]

"Events, dear boy, events" (to quote a man who was married to an adulterous wife for 30-odd years!).

Just because you're pretty sure the plane won't fall is not in itself a reason not to take out travel insurance.

Me & mrs M did a pre-nup nearly thirty years ago now. We'd completely forgotten it till we came across it while clearing out old papers lately. We had a great evening quoting bits of it to one another and laughing our heads off.

Anyway, didn't we have enough of the whole "undermine the institution of marriage" stuff only too recently?

But doesn't it just trip off the tongue?

Linguistic determinism as it was.

 

[Mitsui2]

would it have had any legal standing? one tends to hear that the courts rip them apart anyway

No idea. It's the same with "living wills" - people talk as though they have legal standing in Ireland, but I'm not at all sure they do.

Our pre-nup was done in Holland, where they did have legal standing even back then. I wouldn't mind but neither of us had a pot to p1ss in at the time!

 

[TedHankey]

Jesus looks like the gays really did want to destroy this holy institution after all...!

What have we done?!

 

[GDPR]

[video=youtube;8SxFc37h6js]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SxFc37h6js[/video]

 

[stopdoingstuff]

Yes indeed. Pre-nups are a key part of not being fleeced by fate. It seems kind of strange that they would not be legal. They are certainly necessary in some jurisdictions and they have the great virtue of making both lawyers and judges less necessary and powerful. Anything that keep people's private relationships away from lawyers and ideologues has to be a good thing.

 

[talkingshop]

Workable? a positive move forward in the age of equality? I don't know what the particular issues are in Australia but it looks like their family courts are backed up and decisions can take years which I assume leaves people in limbo. Presumably there would be less need to enrich blood sucking lawyers and take up the good time of judges more than is necessary.



Pauline Hanson blueprint for Australia: If One Nation leader were PM

Not very romantic, I know, but I see no reason why they shouldn't be legal. I know a few people who are reluctant to marry their partners (second relationships mainly) because they have a small house or an apartment, and they are afraid that if things go belly-up, their house will end up having to be sold and the proceeds split, and as they are miid-50s or thereabouts, they will never be able to buy another place and will end up renting, if they can afford it, for the rest of their lives.

 

[Ireniall]

Workable? a positive move forward in the age of equality? I don't know what the particular issues are in Australia but it looks like their family courts are backed up and decisions can take years which I assume leaves people in limbo. Presumably there would be less need to enrich blood sucking lawyers and take up the good time of judges more than is necessary.



Pauline Hanson blueprint for Australia: If One Nation leader were PM

It would be far easier if the state simply refused to offer such a contract in the first place and just informed people that they were married in the eyes of the state when the first patter of tiny feet is heard. It would put every type of marriage in the same boat and you wouldn't have the ridiculous situation where people insist on a permanent contract-illegal in any other circumstance-while then seeking to have special divorce legislation to end it. A bit like the anti-dote to poison. It would be unnecessary if the poisoning was avoided in the first place. The law would then reflect the fact that the relationship between any couple is none of the states concern until a third party, the children become involved and the states role in this would be to ensure the best possible outcome for them which gives it a legitimate interest in the relationship between the parents at that stage.

 

[ShoutingIsLeadership]

In case things go mmmbop?