Marriage Is A Business: Use A Contract


Regardless of what one wants to do, there is generally a right way, a wrong way and the accepted way.  With some things, the right way and the accepted way are the same because that’s the best way to do it and it works.  However, there are some issues in which there is debate over what the right way and wrong way actually is, with the result is that the accepted way is the way that doesn’t cause women to get their panties in a wad.

Case in point:  Marriage

Quite literally, nobody knows what they’re doing anymore.  There was a time when marriage was a serious business, back when boomers weren’t cruising the highways in land boats spending their children’s inheritance.  There was once a time when it was expected of couples to leave their children better off than they were.  No more.  There was a time when marriage combined property and there was a sense of stewardship.  No more.

Every state has a law stating that those who wish to get married must get a marriage license from the state and almost nobody knows that law is, according to the Supreme Court, nothing more than a polite suggestion.  In 1878 the court visited the issue and declared marriage to be a fundamental right, stating that laws regarding marriage licenses and such were “merely directory.”  Look up the word “directory” in a legal dictionary and you’ll see what I mean- there can be no invalidating consequences for disregard for such a law.

Understand what it means to get that license:  you are putting the State in charge of making the rules for your marriage.  Isn’t it far better to have the rules for your marriage set down on paper, one which you have signed and had witnessed?


Far better than relying on the state’s whims is to get married with a well-written marriage contract that functions as both a pre-nup and a contract of marriage.  If done right and all the requirements are observed, a court would be leery of disregarding such a contract because they know they’d lose on appeal.  You see, there was a time when people got married with a contract.  Yes, they observed the social niceties but the contract was serious business because there was property on the line.   Assets that took generations to accumulate.

It’s time to return to the use of the marriage contract and do it right.


Those individuals who are numbered among that most despicable class of persons known as attorneys often protest that a marriage contract doesn’t work, a judge will throw it out and proceed as planned.  This is incorrect and I have yet to have a member of that most despicable class present me with evidence in which a couple was married by right, without a license, using a contract of marriage that specified:

  • The authority under which the couple was married (God’s not the state);
  • Who the parties to the marriage were (specifically excluding the state);
  • Why the parties chose to get married, listing the reasons and expectations;
  • What the standard of commitment called “marriage” they were agreeing to;
  • What the rules for the marriage are (only from God or by mutual agreement);
  • How such rules were administered and by whom;
  • How the posterity (children) might be dealt with (inheritance);
  • Who had the authority to adjudicate irresolvable disputes within the marriage, and;
  • When and how such a marriage might end.

Don’t take that the wrong way, I’m not saying all attorneys are personally despicable because they’re not.  I’ve known a few almost all my life and a few were likely enough wenches to take to my bed, but they’re still members of that most despicable class of persons due to their training and egregious profession.  As proof, most attorneys will have nothing to do with helping draft a marriage contract designed to exclude the state and avoid the court system because it’s a conflict of interest and a violation of their rules.

Use a contract.

The images in this post are real wedding pictures from hundreds of years ago.

This entry was posted in Divorce, Marriage, Marriages Go Their Own Way, Messages to a young man and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Marriage Is A Business: Use A Contract

  1. Renee Harris says:

    This really hot writer keep talking about his book on this topic love to read more… 😉

  2. Cohab Monkey says:

    Check out this book on cohabitation agreements:

    • It sounds good, but there are some specific issues that the agreement has to handle and other requirements that have to be observed. The Bonds case tended to set the standard for prenups, which is how you’d want a cohabitation contract viewed if bad things happen.

      In a different world a cohabitation contract would be fine. The problem is that cohabitation can and does offer a court the option to deem the parties to be married with rather interesting ramifications after that.

      The problem isn’t that sometimes things don’t work out, the problem is how that gets worked out when they don’t work out. It’s actually all about incentives. The current legal environment of marriage places the incentives for the woman on the side of nuking the marriage, leaving with cash and prizes knowing she’ll get custody of the children and decades of payments from their father.

      The object is to arrange the incentives in such a way as to reward staying in the relationship and penalize leaving the relationship. That tends to have an effect on the perceptions of whether it’s time to leave or just time to work things out.

      Then we come to religious issues, 3rd party interference and household discipline. Ever hear of the Duluth model of abuse? It’s a patriarchal minefield. About the only thing you can do with that is wrap it in kink because the one thing a court does not want to do is get in the way of a woman’s orgasms. Spank her because she really needs it and knows she wants it? That’s abuse. Spank her because she gets off on it? Carry on, but do try to keep the noise down.

      I’m always interested in learning, but in this legal environment, one either goes all the way or not at all and cohabitation looks way too much like the man is trying to get the milk without buying the cow and the courts want to make sure the man pays. And pays.

  3. Just Some Guy says:

    This is very interesting and I’m surprised that this article is so short. It felt as if you were just ramping up and then stopped. If you could provide examples or sources for any Biblical based marriage contracts that you suggest, I’d love to read them. My Google-Fu leads me only to either the classical Christian covenant vs Contract debate or secular contracts involving both State and Courts.

    • There’s a lot more coming, this was just the introduction. The problem lies with the current legal system and believe it or not, the BDSM community has done more than all the churches put together when it comes to developing contracts that keep the state out of their hair.

      Ultimately the contractual form of marriage- as opposed to the state’s form of statutory marriage -has to be of such a nature that the courts look at it and are presented with so many problems that upset precedent that they find the easiest thing to do is give the parties what they originally contracted to do.

      Combine that with a contract that very clearly spells out the rights (plural) the contract rests on and any court can see that it has the legs to be granted cert if push comes to shove and courts don’t want to deal with it. The goal is a Gordian knot that can’t be cut. Unfortunately, the only way to do that right now is with polygyny, which too many of the right people find distasteful if not downright sinful.

  4. Renee Harris says:

    Are you a lawyer?

    • I am not, nor have I ever been a member of that most despicable class of persons known as attorneys. A lawyer is one learned in law, while an attorney is formally trained in procedure. Most lawyers are attorneys but very few attorneys actually become lawyers; although all attorneys are referred to as lawyers. Interestingly, many of the most famous of the lawyers never went to law school- they served apprenticeships under those who were already learned in law and procedure. That practice is no longer allowed, for it demonstrated the incompetence of law schools.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s