“Conjugal Property” - such is the standard, realistic as well as logical phrase used, the norm observed and the practice followed when after marriage, what the husband has then belongs as well to the wife in the same way that what the wife has then belongs as well to the husband. This is the reality behind the phrase “Conjugal Property”, viz., as a married couple, husband and wife own – possess, use and enjoy – all the then conjugal goods/properties they both earn, have and dispose of. So it is that when a man and a woman get married, there is neither yours nor mine – but “ours” in temporal assets and liabilities. Theirs is but one conjugal life to have and to live. So it is that theirs as well is but one sum of temporal assets to earn, keep or spend, to enhance, to use or loose – as well as to save and provide for their continuous and increasing needs of their eventual children.
And rightly so: Through their “Conjugal Covenant” they make and live the formal pact that together they shall live as husband and wife, together they shall experience their joys and sorrows, together they shall live through thick and thin – as together as well they raise their family and together too, they keep and spend, they increase or decrease their “Conjugal Property” – until death do them part. So it is that even in but business corporations or corporate industries, the corporate members thereof win or lose together.
When single: What the man owns and/or earns belongs to him in the same way that what the woman owns and/or earns belongs to her. He keeps and spends what is his. She keeps and spends what is hers. Expressed in more plain and simple language, it means: What is yours is yours. What is mine is mine. Keep what is yours, I keep what is mine. Separate lives we have and our properties remain separate as well. This is logical, realistic, practical.
But when a man and a woman are married, as a matter of course: They are two in one such that they live under one roof, rest in but one bed and eat but on one table. So it is that when a man and a woman enter into a Conjugal Covenant, what belongs to the husband belongs as well to the wife in the same way that what belongs to the wife belongs as well to the husband. Why? Because their union makes them one in abundance or want, in what they have or do not. Such is marriage that the husband and wife concerned are one in joys and tears, in abundance and destitution.
So it is that the so-called Prenuptial Agreement” – or something the like with camouflaged disgusting connotations – is in effect but a disunity even before a union, a separation before a consolidation. Truth to tell, such an agreement is in effect a disagreement about the man trusting the woman and the woman trusting the man even prior to their nuptials. So it is that there is already a separation even before the union, there is distrust instead of mutual trust that marriage basically presumes and accordingly requires. Marriage is definitely not for those, one of whom at least already distrusts the other in material possessions even before his or her actual marriage-in-fact.
To get married to someone with distrust towards the other is already a separatist factor even before a union.