>>>>Once again, anybody who needs a contract to say that shouldn't be getting married. Does it matter where the property came from?
>>>
>>>Sure it does. Consider the case of a pair of 70+-year-olds, widowed from first marriages. Say one of them has a part-ownership in a family business. I can definitely imagine having such a contract to make it clear that the family business remains with the first family and the new spouse doesn't get a share when the owner dies.
>>
>>Ok, it matters. It also sucks as a concept. What kind of person would want to cut out their spouse? Why are they getting married in the first place?
>
>I snipped a lot just to keep this readable.
>
>My key point in all this is that there is a difference between young(-ish) people getting married and establishing a family, and older people who've already been down that path getting married again. Whether they're marrying for love or companionship, a late-in-life marriage isn't about establishing a family in the same way.
>
>Tamar

Agreed - it's not about establishing a family in the same way, but I still don't see the point in getting married to someone you don't with to share with fully. It has to be counter-productive at best. The marriage starts out on the wrong foot afaic, and I just don't feel it has much of a future on that basis.

Bottom line, in this day and age, if you don't want to be full sharing partners, then don't get married. 'Companionship' doesn't have the stigma it once had.