In Last One Down the Aisle Wins, Shannon Fox and Celeste Liversidge talk about the 67% of single women they polled who experience ‘aisle envy’ which is jealousy of being the bride.

From an interview on MomLogic:

ml: What are the dangers of marrying too young?

SF: The statistics clearly show that getting married too young puts you at greater risk for divorce. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, if you wait until after the age of 25 to get married, your chances of staying married more than double! The old “50 percent of marriages end in divorce” statistic is literally cut in half if you just wait a while longer to take the plunge. But even if you don’t divorce, by marrying young you’re inviting marital struggles that could be avoided or lessened by allowing yourself to mature and develop in important areas of your life.

Another huge danger in marrying young is that you will make an unwise choice in a spouse. You’re likely to marry someone you would never have chosen if you had waited. If you view marriage as a long-term prospect, it only makes sense to give yourself at least the majority of your 20s to get to know yourself better before you choose a partner. Not only will you make a better choice, but we guarantee you’ll be a better spouse.

Here is the chart:

CDC Source Document

This data does not include all states, it’s missing California, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana, and Minnesota.

That makes a 2009 study from the U.S. Census Bureau all the more significant. The study was on 2009 America’s Families and Living Arrangements.

Here are a couple of summary charts we put together:

Source: US Census.

Using the same source, the PAIRS Foundation has done a deeper look at divorce rates at different income levels:

The 2009 America’s Families and Living Arrangements study reveals the percentage of women earning over $100k who are divorced climbs from 11.85% between 45-49 to 22.45% from 50-54. For men in the same income category, the percentage who are divorced drops from 8.4% between the ages of 45-49 to 6.61% for those who are 50-54.

For men between 45-54, as income increases, the percentage who are divorced declines. For high-earning women between 50-54, the percentage that are divorced grows as paychecks increase.

We’ll look at this further in future posts.

Concurrent with the adoption of easy divorce has been a relaxation in social attitudes about marriage and family. Compared with mid 20th century Americans, for whom having a marriage and family was a social expectation, we are more likely to view it as one lifestyle choice among many.

As claimed by the boosters of less restrictive marriages, we should see that the smaller share of people who are married today chose it more freely than their grandparents and are more free to leave should they become unhappy in their marriage, and thus they should be happier than previous generations forced to stick it out in unhappy marriages.

However, the share of married women who reported to be very happy declined from 67 percent in 1973 to 60 percent in 1990, and has flatlined as divorce rates have tapered off. Paradoxically, in a culture in which it is more normal to choose not to be married or to get out of an unhappy marriage, fewer people rate their marriages as happy.

This parallels with recent discoveries in the psychology of happiness, which show people grow accustomed to situations they are committed to but continually second-guess decisions they are given the option to change, leading to decreased satisfaction with those decisions (see Dan Gilbert’s talk at the 2004 TED conference).

The ideal of traditional marriage, while not always followed, was characterized by, among other things, lifelong commitment, and was only broken in cases of abuse, infidelity, or abandonment.

And in most cases, it worked. More children grew up with two parents and a greater proportion of people reported being happily married.

Now, however, marriage is not one final choice but reconsidered and second-guessed as circumstances dictate. This change was not caused entirely by no-fault divorce laws, since divorce rates began trending upward in the 1960’s.

However, it is rather telling that it is easier to get out of marriage, once viewed as the foundation of society, than a business contract. Not only is this a formula for increased dissatisfaction even among those in the 60 percent of marriages that have not ended in divorce, it constitutes a fundamental shift in the definition of marriage.

The three most common mistakes couples make:

1) Blaming the other instead of taking personal responsibility. When you blame someone else, you give up your personal power and make your happiness dependent on another person’s behavior rather than looking at what you are doing to make yourself miserable

2) Knowing the difference between being responsive and being reactive. As an example, he leaves the dishes in the sink 50 times and you scream at him 50 times and you haven’t understood why he did it. Another turning point that is being represented in this example is knowing the difference between control and influence as well as control and controlling. Influencing might be to move the dishes to the dishwasher with the hope that eventually he will get the idea. Controlling would be to feel anxious over the sink full of dishes and to yell at the other to clean up, again and again. Taking control in this case may be to sit down and discuss what his idea is related to cleanliness and the kitchen and then to come to some consensus over what he agrees to and what you agree to in terms of household tasks.

3) What leads to divorce is not knowing the difference between surrendering and submitting. What we mean by surrender comes from the tango. It means choosing to give yourself over to a love relationship just as in the dance when two people move together (called surrendering) to the steps of the tango and to the music. People confuse this with submitting, which is master-slave. In submitting we are no longer owning our own fate. This causes us to feel depressed and defeated and we imagine the only way to get our lives back is to leave the one we are with.

But first, here’s the CBS News summary of their final agreement:

Court documents show the two reached a settlement in early July. The terms are unknown, but Elin is expected to get about $100 million, says celebrity website TMZ.com. The two reportedly revised their prenuptial agreement after the scandal broke. Since then, Woods has lost an estimated $18 to $25 million in endorsements and spent two months in sex rehab, Tracy said..

Celebrity divorce attorney Raoul Felder remarked on “The Early Show” Tuesday that Woods was in “Desperateville” when he was making deals with Nordegren’s lawyers. “He probably overpaid,” Felder said. “I would judge (the amound Woods agreed to hand over at) anywhere from $100 million to almost $500 million.”

“Early Show” co-anchor Erica Hill asked, “So $100 million is the low end?” Felder replied, “Because he was desperate. July 4th, he signed a post-nuptial agreement. Then he went into rehab for two months and for an illness that half of America hopes they would have, I guess. And then he tried this ridiculous press conference that didn’t work. And then the golf wasn’t working. So this is the only thing left.”

Felder said it’s “kind of late to resuscitate the patient,” but he added that he would have advised the golf star, “(to) immediately hold a real press conference and kill it.” “He is paying for confidentiality,” Felder said. “That’s something you can never get at any price. … It never works. The cousin tells the brother in law and all of a sudden it’s there again. The only pray you have is you stagger payments. But no woman wants staggered payments. So I think he’s had it. He’s in Desperateville. He the best he did the best thing he could. But it’s not going to work.”

Hill pointed out that Nordegren clearly had the upper hand since their relationship began to unravel just before Thanksgiving last year when Woods crashed his car outside the couple’s Florida home — and women began coming out of the woodwork. Felder agreed, saying, “She had him by the throat. I mean, girls were coming over like a bakery, ‘take a number,’ you know, ‘next girl.’”

But what about the pre-nuptial agreement between the two? Felder says it was likely rewritten, but didn’t work to salvage the marriage. “Pre-nups matter, but this was a very unusual situation,” he said. “He had to stop this hemorrhaging that he was having, and so he killed the pre-nup and made it much more rich. But it didn’t help.”

From a few months back, here’s an opinion from Your Family Matter’s Law Blog:

Tiger’s first offer was to add another $5 million to the $20 million Elin would have received under the original terms of the Prenuptial Agreement. Now, according to news reports, he is offering her another $80 million to remain with him another six years. (Hmm, how much is that a year?) Even $80 million for a man with $600 million is small change to buy Elin’s willingness to give Tiger another chance to recommit to his marriage. So the message is, “You stay with me for another six years, and I will throw a little more money at you if we divorce.” It doesn’t show very much commitment on Tiger’s part…

So when Tiger and Elin got married, they did not make the 100% commitment that most other married people make on their wedding day. They had wedding vows, but if they said “I marry you with this ring, with all that I have and all that I am, for better or worse, for richer or poorer … ” they were not telling the truth. Tiger and his attorneys were manipulating the terms of a very real institution that has been developed throughout the thousands of years that humans have been creating supportive, monogamous relationships. By manipulating it with a Prenuptial Agreement, they were weakening it, not strengthening it. It’s not surprising that Tiger may have found it relatively easy to depart from his marital vows. He had made another (contractual) vow that conflicted with the marital vows.

USLaw Postnup Advice:

This is the perfect time for Elin to negotiate a new prenup with Tiger, while he’s got his tail between his legs. He’s under pressure to save the marriage and she’s got all the leverage…

Have Tiger tear up the prenuptial agreement. Negotiate a new prenup, called a post-nuptial agreement, which is a binding contract entered into while the couple is married.

Get paid for all the time she already served in the marriage. I call this a “Time Served” Clause. A $15 million a year lump sum payment per year of married life completed would be a good start for the years under her belt—years she had to put up with Tiger.

Negotiate a “Misstress Clause”: If Tiger cheats, he writes his wife a multi-million dollar check. Insert a new clause providing a payment to Elin for every year she stays in the marriage going forward.

The EarthTimes:

Golfer Tiger Woods may be able to salvage his marriage if his wife Elin agrees to a multimillion-dollar post-nuptial agreement, according to Boca Raton attorney Doreen Yaffa, a board-certified matrimonial lawyer.

“If media reports are accurate, Tiger and Elin Woods are amending their pre-marriage agreement after the extensive coverage of his ‘transgressions’ – a potentially positive step for both of them,” said Yaffa. “By settling the big financial issues, a post-nup would allow the couple to work on the emotional side of their relationship.”…

“If these men are serious, a post-nuptial agreement can help salvage their marriages,” says Boca Raton attorney Doreen Yaffa, a board-certified matrimonial lawyer. In recent years, Yaffa has helped several couples resolve their marital issues with a “post-nup,” a contract that is similar in many ways to a pre-nuptial agreement signed before marriage. In fact, a pre-nuptial agreement can be turned into a post-nup at any time if both husband and wife agree.

“Post-nups are rare today because most people don’t understand the concept,” says Yaffa, managing partner at Yaffa & Associates. “But if there were more post-nups, I believe the divorce rate would probably be lower.”

Now, when someone comes to her office who wants a divorce, Yaffa says the first question she asks is, “Are you sure your marriage is over?” If the person is not sure, she suggests considering a post-nuptial agreement. “In every case, the spouses who signed a post-nup are still married,” Yaffa says.

FindLaw

As you can tell, Tiger Woods and Elin Nordegren have a lot of hurdles that they face. To negotiate a postnuptial agreement, they would have to go through all of Tiger Woods’ assets. Future assets could be more difficult to quantify if there’s a chance Woods’ endorcement deals suffer from the scandal.

Like any couple negotiating a postnuptial agreement, Tiger and Elin must go through an exhaustive list of financial obligations, make sure duress is not forcing wither side to agree, and ensure that any postnupial agreeement is fair to both sides.

Here’s the CNN story on them:

On the day of their 72nd wedding anniversary, they leaned toward each other, hands tenderly clasped, as they peered into the camera. Harry and Barbara celebrated their 25th anniversary with a trip to Europe. Then the first grandchild came. Today, they have seven of them. The couple can’t remember what they did for their 50th anniversary, but for Harry’s 80th birthday, they recalled, the family went on a three-day cruise to Mexico.

In the video segments on the OGs, viewers can easily spot the enduring bond between Harry and Barbara. They lean in on each other and stare at each other when they talk. They laugh and smile together. They make being married, even at their old age, look effortless.

So what’s the secret to their marriage? “We have a solid marriage,” Barbara says. “It isn’t Romeo and Juliet every day, but Harry thinks I’m OK, and I love him. We are accepting of each other.” And that’s good enough for them.

As Jeffrey Cottrill puts it:

If you’re considering divorce, remember that this decision will deeply change the lives of your spouse, your children, your parents, and maybe extended family and friends as well as your own. Divorce is not something to be decided hastily. It’s a choice to end the most important relationship in your life — a relationship that, once upon a time, may have been wonderful. You may feel sure there’s no bringing back the marital satisfaction you once enjoyed (or expected). But is divorce going to solve your current problems — or just create more?
 
Remember that even great marriages require work. All romantic relationships are, to some degree, an exercise in compromise: there’s always some level of adjustment toward each other’s conflicting tastes, schedules, moods, quirks, and expectations, because there’s no such thing as a couple whose personalities are completely in sync with each other. But when this work pays off, a healthy marriage can be a source of incredible happiness, comfort, and security. Should you throw away such a potentially good thing? Ask yourself if it’s worth making the effort to see if your marriage can be saved before you file for divorce.
 
“Couples need a roadmap of what goes on in a normal marriage,” explains Diane Sollee, the founder and director of Smartmarriages.com. “They’re always comparing themselves to “how happy I should be.’ But it has nothing to do with whether you find Mr. or Ms. Right. It has little to do with ‘compatibility’, because even incompatible couples have made it. The courtship process is about looking for compatibility, but after you’re married, things change and you’ll find lots of incompatibilities between you. Whether you understand that this is normal will predict how well you do.”

Here are some guidelines that Cottrill recommends:

Try to save your marriage if:

• At least one of you is willing to seek help in some way: marriage counseling, relationship workshops, books on how to re-ignite passion
• You both recognize that disagreements are a normal part of any marriage
• You’re open to learning how to communicate openly and honestly — without accusing or blaming each other, or “hitting below the belt”
• You’re willing to accept responsibility and apologize for the damage you’ve done to your spouse and to your marriage
• You’re willing and able to devote time and effort to improving your relationship
• You both believe the marriage is worth trying to save.

Divorce might be your best choice if:

• There’s a pattern of abuse, drug addiction, or repeated infidelity
• Neither of you is willing to change or adapt to present circumstances
• Neither of you is able to forgive past wrongs or make amends
• You’re committed to seeing yourself as 100% innocent and your spouse as 100% guilty regarding the problems in your relationship
• One of you has declared a new sexual orientation
• You believe the marriage isn’t worth trying to save

It’s surprising there hasn’t been more news coverage of this event, and perhaps it should be a bigger debate. Is no-fault divorce a good thing that provides for a more efficient end to unhappy marriages? Or is it representative of the trend where marriage is taken less seriously?

The New York Times has the summary:

Gov. David A. Paterson signed into law a package of bills on divorce on Sunday, including one making New York one of the last states to allow couples to dissolve marriages by mutual consent.

The no-fault divorce bill allows a couple to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent and without requiring one spouse to accuse the other of adultery, cruelty, imprisonment or abandonment. It also allows one spouse to divorce the other unilaterally.

The quote from New York Governor David Patterson:

“Finally, New York has brought its divorce laws into the 21st century,” Paterson said in a statement. “These bills fix a broken process that produced extended and contentious litigation, poisoned feelings between the parties and harmed the interests of those persons — too often women — who did not have sufficient financial wherewithal to protect their legal rights.”

Christian broadcaster CBN gives some background:

The controversy began in the 1970s when California became the first state to adopt no-fault. Before then, any person filing for divorce had to prove the other spouse was at fault.

Family law expert Lynn Marie Kohm said that rule led to trauma in the courtroom.

“Judges don’t want to hear everyone’s dirty laundry in the courtroom and people would like to maintain their privacy,” she explained.

Still, there’s great disenchantment with no-fault divorce.

Marcia Pappas, president of the National Organization for Women in New York warned that under no-fault, “the moneyed spouse (usually the husband) would have freedom to shelter the marital assets, hire an attorney, and start divorce proceedings before his wife ever suspects what is happening.”

Conservatives add that no-fault also weakens the marriage contract and makes it easier for the divorcing spouse to avoid financial obligations.

“We are really changing the definition of marriage from no longer ’till death do us part’ but ‘until I feel differently,’” said Jason McGuire, executive director of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms. “Marriage is the only contract in the entire country that you can get out of just by your choice, without any consequences,” Kohm added.

Some commentary in the New York Divorce Law Blog:

It’s finally here! Gov. Patterson signed the no-fault divorce legislation package yesterday, and annonced the signing today. New York now joins the other 49 states in providing for a no-fault divorce.  The new law lets a person divorce on the ground that their marriage has been irretrievably broken for 6 months.

However, all issues regarding child custody, child support, spousal maintenance, and property distribution must be resolved prior to the divorce. The Governor also signed separate bills affecting spousal maintenance and awards of legal fees in divorce actions.

I’m sure that this new legislation will cause tremendous upheaval and uncertainty in the practice and litigation of divorce and family law cases in New York for the next several years, as the Courts, attorneys, and the parties begin to understand, interpret, and work with the new laws. In fact, I’m going to spend the next few weeks reviewing the legislation and counseling my clients about how the new law affects them and their cases and case strategies. It will be an eye-opening experience for sure.