If you can’t adequately explain why you are a strong proponent of prenuptial agreements (candidly, those contracts do have an enduring image problem across a swath of the general public), you might just want to hand the baton off to Erin Lowry.
Lowry is a financial writer who delves into family law topics. And when she turns her attention to premarital contracts, her take is, well, a bit removed from standard dialogue.
Here’s why. Lowry notes that prenup apologists often get into a verbal swamp of backtracking and apologies when stressing the upsides of that marital tool. Lowry states that, “Most people have visceral reactions when I bring up the topic.”
Many readers know that prenups negatively resonate for some people. They stamp out love, are akin to cold water dousing passion, doom marriage before the “I do” proclamation … etc., etc.
None of that rings true for Lowry. She strongly endorses prenups and isn’t about to apologize for it. She even terms them “romantic.”
And, arguably, her rationale makes strong sense. Lowry stresses that seeking to calmly and dispassionately address key matters ranging from inheritances and debt to asset division and more prior to tying the marital knot (while still safely “nestled in the bubble of your engagement”) is a smart endeavor. Being flatly unwilling to do both fails to acknowledge the future’s uncertainty and misses an important opportunity to timely “normalize discussions about the financial terms and conditions of marriage.”
Ultimately, the optimal way to see a prenuptial agreement may be through the lens of alternative terminology that dampens down the emotive thrust it carries for many couples. Lowry suggests a defused term like “marriage insurance.”
After all, that is precisely what a prenuptial contract is.
Questions concerning prenups or any other family law-linked matter can be directed to a proven and empathetic legal team.
