> In both cases, there are default consequences in law that apply in the absence of contrary explicit agreement, particularly (relevant to thr current issue) as regards property attributable to the relationship, including which property that is.
I'm aware of that and seeing as the Bezos's marriage did not have a pre-nup, Jeff was relatively fortunate. But my concern is with how marriages are treated as legal institutions apart from how commercial contracts are upheld.
In a partnership, two private parties can create a contract by themselves. The state is not involved in the creation of a contract. The state will only involve itself with the contract's enforcement or the resolution of any suits arising from its dissolution. The state works within the body of laws it's upheld, but almost all rights stated in the contract supersede the default assumptions held by the state.
When it comes to marriage, the state (via the court) is deemed its creator, enforcer, and dissolver. A divorce can only be granted under the acceptance of the state's terms. A judge can decide to ignore precedent or the upholding of a pre-nup.
I'm aware of that and seeing as the Bezos's marriage did not have a pre-nup, Jeff was relatively fortunate. But my concern is with how marriages are treated as legal institutions apart from how commercial contracts are upheld.
In a partnership, two private parties can create a contract by themselves. The state is not involved in the creation of a contract. The state will only involve itself with the contract's enforcement or the resolution of any suits arising from its dissolution. The state works within the body of laws it's upheld, but almost all rights stated in the contract supersede the default assumptions held by the state.
When it comes to marriage, the state (via the court) is deemed its creator, enforcer, and dissolver. A divorce can only be granted under the acceptance of the state's terms. A judge can decide to ignore precedent or the upholding of a pre-nup.