What "you believe" they know has no bearing on anything. If they know there is divorce and they are getting married, they should educate themselves. Your idle speculation means nothing.
If you really expect young people getting married, whose hormones are raging and who have major questions to face of career choices, education, the development of their minds and personalities--as well as just making a living--and who may even be already about to become parents, to "educate" themselves about "law" which is impossible to even define, and which may only exist in the mind of the judge about to make it, you are living in a dream world.
My comments are not based upon "idle speculation" but, as I mentioned, years of study of this question, including personally questioning and interviewing a large number of people. Not one in ten, in my research, were aware that a married party is considered "guilty until proven innocent" of oweing their spouse one-half of everything they owned. Not one in one-hundred were aware that in Texas, at least according to the Family Code, there exists a special, high standard of proof--beyond the normal civil standard, and according to some opinion "almost equal to the criminal standard"--required to show that a given asset is not community property (the "clear and convincing" standard). About one-half were aware that "community property" existed but believed that the burden of proof that a given asset belonged in this category was on the party wishing to show that it did. My questioning applied to both genders (with somewhat more awareness of these laws being found in females), a broad range of ages, social classes and marital statuses.
I had intended to write a book based upon this data but decided that due to the condition of my health, I could not tolerate the inevitably ensuing lawuits and harassment from various sources, whose interests such a book would not serve.
Why not just get rid of all of this corrupt, degenerate, anachronistic, deceptive and undefineable "law" and return to the simple, intuitive and natural principle of "no 'contracts' except for those clearly drawn by the parties or their chosen attornies or, when clearly justified, implied by their proveable, actual behaviour"?
Go back and carefully re-read my last post, Don Quixote!
Edited by jbar (04/24/08 02:24 AM)