Valentine’s Day is around the corner, and the Early Show decided to talk love: love of money that is. Host Harry Smith and his male guests agonized over losing assets in a marriage, while Julie Chen rightly called them out, saying marriage is much more than a business deal.
Co-host Julie Chen, the lone female voice in the segment, suggested a pre-nuptial agreement as a solution to Titus’ concern. Titus declared that pre-nups are too “tough,” and came out in full support of a new thing called ‘post-nuptials.’
“It's actually like a reformatting of the relationship,” Titus said. “After there's been history and maybe there's been trust build up, you know your partner better, and then you try to reformulate the marriage.”
Raoul Felder, a famous matrimonial attorney and the other guest in the segment, was also in favor of the new solution to material marriage problems. “A post-nuptial agreement’s a pretty smart, uh, instrument. A prenuptial agreement, you don't know what you're getting into ... post-nuptial agreement, you know we’re having problems about the cat, or the dishes or how you're spending money and so forth, so they can do it more intelligently.” Felder said.
Felder cited the economy as having an impact on the popularity of post-nups saying, “They can’t afford a divorce at this point because there’s nothing to split up. So they sign a post-nuptial agreement that says whenever one of us triggers this, we divide up whatever we have half and half, and they put other provisions in there.” The Business and Media Institute also noted the major network stories about the economy’s impact on divorce, citing the expensive process is keeping troubled marriages in tact in the current economic climate.
As if the value of marriage wasn’t reduced enough, Felder threw in this bit of wisdom: “And ya know, it’s pretty good for women sometimes because if a woman wants a divorce, a man will pay more to keep a wife than get rid of a wife.”
Chen sat dumbfounded until co-host Harry Smith realized she wasn’t talking. “I'm speechless,” said Chen. “I'm out numbed by these guys. You make it, it’s a Valentine's show and you guys are talking about it like it's a business arrangement.”
Felder, the divorce attorney, responded saying, “Business is part of marriage.”
Chen wrapped up the depressing segment saying, “Thanks for ruining my Valentine's Day.”
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Commitment. Try it
February 10, 2009 - 13:51 ET by HockeyKidCommitment. Try it sometime.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
!!!
February 10, 2009 - 13:55 ET by katainkentyou know we’re having problems about the cat, or the dishes or how you're spending money and so forth, so they can do it more intelligently
I'm sorry but if you're so wrapped around the axle about things like this in a marriage that you can't maturely work them out without a contract - don't get married.
I'm sorry the female commentator in this segment felt disillusioned but seriously... she had a book author who wrote about money and a 'matrimonial' attorney... next time get a marriage counselor/pastor, a chocolatier and/or a florist if you want something positive said about commiting to a relationship and she'll have a better Valentines Day.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -Edmund Burke
YIPEEEE!!!! MARKET CRATERING!!!!
February 10, 2009 - 14:00 ET by krendlerAre the networks going to give all credit to that proven economic genius Obama, or does that only occur on days the market goes up?
Looks like Wall Street just loves the prospects of the stimulus bill just passed.
→ krendler
February 10, 2009 - 14:05 ET by Cool ArrowFOX gave him the glory, and switching over to MSNBC, Brian Williams gave Geithner a pretty good grilling.
I don't think anybody much likes Geithner. Bad choice.
Looks like Williams has a black eye, or more likely a big herpes lesion under his eye.
Looking for love in all the wrong places, I guess.
CA -
February 10, 2009 - 18:50 ET by stratmanThat's what you get for having your head up Obama's keister.
Does Julie Speak from Experience?
February 10, 2009 - 14:13 ET by allanfHow ironic for Julie to make these comments. Julie is married to CBS head honcho Les Monves. That association has not hurt her career.
I suppose the irony was completely lost on her.
→ Not really allanf
February 10, 2009 - 14:18 ET by Cool ArrowShe's just letting the world know why she married Moonves.
Certainly wasn't his manly look or the animal attraction she felt for him.
She's making fun of her old man. It's a typical liberal woman trait.
But thanks for shining some light on her personal situation. I didn't know she was contractually attached to Moonves.
allanf... Right you
February 10, 2009 - 14:21 ET by bigtimerallanf...
Right you are...you beat me to it.
All kidding aside, this
February 10, 2009 - 15:58 ET by danebramageAll kidding aside, this helps explain why liberals are so adamant about gay marriage. To them, marriage is nothing more than a contractual matter, a business arrangement...a legalized form of prostitution, more or less. How pathetic is that? I almost pity them.
Chen I think comes off as
February 10, 2009 - 16:59 ET by dscottChen I think comes off as naive. At one time I would have agreed with her but that was before the reality of divorce. Hopefully Chen is the kind who actually believes in till death do us part. Unfortunately, the reality is divorce is a multi-billion dollar litigation industry. Marriage was a contract before it was modified by the flaming liberals over the last 50 years. The contract was love and devotion till death do us part, in sickness and health, for richer or poorer... The contract was modified without the public's permission by the courts. Breaking the contract has become a means to for one individual, usually the female, to legally steal from her former partner under the guise of social justice. When motherhood becomes a means of extracting ransom payments from the non custodial parent by legalized kidnapping of children, it should be obvious the Marriage is not something one should do because they are "in love." Love is blind.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Of course...
February 10, 2009 - 17:11 ET by jdlybrandnewsisblues
It's so true for these folks. I mean; who in their right mind could love such emotionally shallow people?
Marriage has been many things
February 10, 2009 - 17:17 ET by Smoking HotBut at least since the dawn of the Christian era, it has been intended to be permanent. This post-nuptial silliness completely undermines that. How can you enter an permanent relationship with one foot already out the door? Let them call it long term dating. It's not marriage.
Amen to that
February 10, 2009 - 17:32 ET by choselife3xSmoking Hot.
(there's five words I never thought I'd put together in that order!) :-)
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
I'm sure I'll do something to exasperate you...
February 10, 2009 - 17:48 ET by Smoking Hotsoon enough. Cheers!
I imagine sex is the same for these types too.
February 10, 2009 - 17:28 ET by szampI imagine sex is just a matter of money for them too. What does tha make them?
Delete
February 10, 2009 - 18:49 ET by stratmanduplicate
womens movement has created predators
February 10, 2009 - 20:52 ET by nadadhimmiAs some one who lost 25 yrs worth of assets to a philandering predator, I can state marriage has deteriated into a contrivance to fleece men of their lifes work. So called equal rights mean the woman getting the house and assets while the man gets the bills. Anyone that disputes this doesn't have experience in the system. Most women look at men as financial oppotunities.
Not this one. Never have,
February 10, 2009 - 21:02 ET by bigtimerNot this one.
Never have, never would, plenty of opportunities though.
Sorry you had a terrible experience, but things happen.
The majority of gals I have known, want to be in love and all that comes with it.
I did say most..there are always a few bad apples...everywhere.
They don't have a clue, what
February 10, 2009 - 23:25 ET by GeneZThey don't have a clue, what it means to be committed. Marriage is not a 'contract' or a monetary proposal. It is a decision to spend the rest of your life with someone. then work at making it happen. We have been married 20 years and been thru job losses, major illnesses etc that often drive marriages apart. Do we have issues sometimes? Absolutely, but we have learned to attack the issues and not each other. It blows my mind how people can go into a marriage and then a few years later, decide that it's just not working and get out...
If true...
February 10, 2009 - 23:47 ET by Secret ConservativeIf what the author says is true
“Men think about marriage as something that, you know, is going to be forever …"
then why would he worry about having to lose his assets? I've thought for years that it should be w-a-a-y more difficult than it is to GET married. And about this whole post-nuptial arrangement, again, the author says,
“After there's been history and maybe there's been trust build up, you know your partner better, and then you try to reformulate the marriage.”
Sounds to me like what he's saying is, once you know your spouse and buyer's remorse has set in, maybe you can strongarm them into a pre-divorce settlement. This doesn't sound like a situation where trust has built up, it sounds like a situation where trust doesn't exist.
People who take their time before getting married, to be sure they know the other person and can truly be partners in building a life together, don't feel like they have to protect themselves from their spouse. And if people were a whole lot less selfish (and it sounds like these show guests are poster children for selfishness) their marriages might work out better.
You obviously have never
February 11, 2009 - 09:34 ET by dscottYou obviously have never been divorced. Most men don't worry about losing assets when getting married BECAUSE they believe the marriage will be permanent. No point in being concerned about being fleeced if your partner has the same comment to marriage as you do. You can't know that before hand about anyone, you can only improve the odds by being thorough. (Society disses thorough as being cynical and not being romantic/emotional)
Men start worrying about assets for two reasons: 1. The fact that over 70% of divorces are initiated by women (not male buyer's remorse as you so characterized). 2. With all the cheap sleazy behavior of the courts older men do insist on pre-nupe agreements to protect themselves. Older men have more life experience and therefore are better informed than younger men who get married. It is rare that a young man (<30) asks for a prenupe, period.
As one who has gone through divorce and seen the outrageous behavior of the courts, women's groups and women with total disregard to both children and husbands, your claim of taking time before getting married is, how should I put it...naive. Until the public tells off the courts and brings a halt to their disruptive marriage destroying behaviors, prenupes and postnupes are entirely appropriate.
The point of these agreements are to defang the court's arbitary and caprious rulings. Any woman who refuses to sign such an agreement 1. believes they are entitled to the privilege of the court's arbitary and caprious behavior even though she intends to stay married, 2. is a gold digger who intends to fleece her husband at the most convenient opportunity, 3 believes divorce is about revenge and wants to keep her options open. 4. is a child of divorce herself and believes it is perfectly normal to be the recipient of alimony and child support as her severance package. Thus they are predators by nature and are unfit for marriage because marriage is a comment and the terms of which are spelled out by the vows - all of which IS a contract.
Tell us, would you marry a woman who believed in any of the four reasons I spelled out why she wouldn't sign a prenupe or postnupe? If not, do you really naively believe such a person is going to tell you she has no intention of living up to the vows (terms and conditions) of marriage (contract)?
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Money
September 22, 2009 - 03:38 ET by diaboliqThis is the problem with marriages today most people seek money and do not merry out of love and end up in spending a fortune on marriage therapy and divorces