by Laurie Israel, Esq.
I’ve been hearing the sorry tale of Tiger Woods’ alleged deficits as a faithful husband to his beautiful Swedish wife, Elin Nordegren. It is just a more publicized and extreme version of what I see in my law practice where I spend my days as a divorce lawyer. In youthful marriages (Tiger is 33, Elin is 29, and have been married for 5 years), the pledge of fidelity is often a difficult one to maintain.
According to Forbes Magazine, Tiger’s net worth from his work as a professional golfer is about a $600 million dollars. (The $1 billion figure in the news is his lifetime earnings, not net worth.)
Tiger actually fits the profile of having a good chance of having a marriage that lasted. He met his wife four years before they were married. Tiger’s parents remained married until his father’s death in 2006. When a child’s parents remain married, the child generally has a better chance of having a lifelong relationship.
However, there were three strikes against him. Tiger had become a very wealthy man at a very young age through his own efforts at his profession. He has been a celebrity in the public light for a long time. These two factors alone can cause several personal and identity problems. And the third (probably the worst) problem is that Tiger (presumably advised by his attorneys) made sure that he entered into a Prenuptial Agreement with Elin prior to their marriage in 2004. This provided that Elin would get $20 million if she remained married to him for 10 years.
Now, it appears that Tiger and his wife are compounding the error by renegotiating the Prenuptial Agreement, rather than just trashing it.
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.
The sad truth is that most fundamental problem in the Tiger Woods marriage may be that they had a Prenuptial Agreement in the first place. It allowed Tiger to have one foot in the marriage and one foot out of the marriage. It allowed Tiger (and Elin) to contemplate a divorce and the terms of the divorce even before they took their vows. It allowed Elin (who was 24 years old at the time of the marriage) to make decisions with a huge impact about the financial implications of the institution of marriage before which she really knew what marriage was about. It probably made Elin feel abused and probably made Tiger feel cruel and heartless. Not a good way to begin a marriage.
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.
As a result, Tiger and Elin were only half married. Marriage requires total commitment. A Prenuptial Agreement gives a person a “way out” of the marriage. Without that total commitment there are bound to be marital problems and divorce. It’s not surprising that Tiger and Elin ran into problems. Couples that depend on each other financially do not have the latitude to think about straying from the marriage. It is actually a blessing in a marriage not to have “too much” money.
What if Elin said to Tiger, “Yes, I will stay married to you, but only if we rip up the Prenuptial Agreement and be like real married couples.” Yes, they would have risk and uncertainly if there is divorce. Maybe that’s a good thing. If Tiger finally said “Yes, I will be married to you, completely”, then Elin and Tiger could start to be truly committed to their marriage without money getting in the way. They would both be following the marriage vows, and their marriage could truly restart.
So Elin and Tiger, think for a moment about tearing up that Prenuptial Agreement and starting a real marriage now. Say to each other (finally) “I marry you with all that I have and all that I am.”
I did some deep cleaning and sorting in the archeological dig that is my home, and ran into my report card from Kindergarten (1951-52) from my bucolic suburban New Jersey elementary school. I had no idea that the document was in my house. It was in pristine shape. My dear departed mother must have saved it for me.
I opened it up, hoping to find clues about my mostly forgotten childhood and the little person I was at age 5. I not only found the child beneath the woman, but also went on a cultural trip through post-war America. (For us, that’s still World War II.)
Here’s what I found.
The report card was slyly named “Report of Progress.” Actually, I don’t remember making any progress in kindergarten. All I remember is sitting on my teacher’s lap, and having daily naps on the floor on a little ratty blanket that we each kept at school for that purpose. I also remember the “cloak room.” Do they still call it that? Is my winter coat a “cloak”? It was in 1952.
The “Progress of Report” contains a disclaimer. It says that the students are not judged “in relation to others at his [sic] grade level, but merely indicates “your child’s achievement based on his [sic] individual capabilities and his own rate of speed in development.” I guess the school (and educational system at the time) wanted to protect us against the ravages of competing in the real world. That certainly turned out to be a losing battle!
Getting to the nitty gritty of “moi, moi, moi,” I had many checkmarks (which indicated satisfactory growth, but, as noted above, not objective achievement). I also had a couple of slashes. This is the sign that indicated the conceptual equivalent of the nasty buzz sound in the game shows when the contestant gave an incorrect answer. These slashes indicated “a need for growth.”
My demerits, no, my “needs from improvement” were in the two following areas: “relaxes easily” and “uses self-control”. Those who know me, may see the child in the man, I mean woman. I was quite surprised that many of my adult deficits were not picked up in this “Report of Progress,” although they were listed in the Report and marked as having attained satisfactory growth. Some of these were: “follows directions”, “speaks distinctly”, and “expresses himself [sic] well”. At least two qualities (which have helped me in my profession), “listens attentively” and “enjoys stories” were noted positively at that early age.
In April 1952, my teacher, Miss Ina M. Legg, wrote in the “Teacher’s Comments”, inter alia, that “Laurie shows signs of improved adjustment to the group.” (Lucky, now I’m self-employed, and people must adjust to me.) In the space where your mother (aka “parent”) comments and signs, my mother was mute and just signed her name. Maybe she was struck speechless by the wonderful report card she had received. Or, more likely, she was busy handling a home with three young children, close in age, of which I was the youngest. Anyway, her thoughts on receiving the missive are now lost to history. At the end of the year, Miss Legg added that she hoped that I was “looking forward to First Grade with pleasure.” I’m not sure if I shared those feelings, but it’s an interesting look into Ms. Legg’s mind.
There was a group photo in the envelope of the entire two kindergarten classes (47 little post-war souls). I was surprised at how mature we all looked. The boys wore striped and plaid shirts and suspenders. The girls wore frilly dresses (yes, even me; perhaps that’s why I looked so unhappy in the photo), or quasi dirndl skirts with white blouses. (What side of the war were their parents on?)
They were different times, but somehow, we all made it through. Have a wonderful holiday season, everyone.
Kindergarten, 1952, Maplewood, New Jersey
Joe Wilson’s (Rep. South Carolina) uncouth and aggressive heckling of President Obama during the President’s speech on health care refo
rm at the Joint Session of Congress on September 9 (“You Lie!”) is now part of the fabric of United States history. Wilson’s behavior is firmly rooted in southern culture and history. There is a particular institution in the south of violence (verbal and physical) that pervades up through modern times, starting in the early history of this country. Below is a very notable example that I was reminded of this week after the “You Lie!” incident.
The Beating of Charles Sumner by S.C. Rep. Preston Brooks
The most notable forbearer to Joe Wilson and his behavior on September 9 was Preston Brooks, another South Carolinian representative. Rep. Brooks beat Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts nearly to death with a heavy cane in the Senate Chamber in 1856 because of an anti-slavery speech Sumner had made two days previously. A South Carolinian colleague, Rep. Laurence M. Keitt, dissuaded Brooks from dueling Sumner, encouraging Books to treat Sumner as a drunkard, due to the supposedly coarse language Sumner had used in his anti-slavery speech. Sumner had compared the institution of slavery to a harlot, and said of Brooks’ uncle, a Senator and a supporter of slavery, that he “took a mistress who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight – I mean the harlot, Slavery.”
Senator Charles Sumner (Mass.)
Two days later, Brooks accosted Sumner on the floor of the Senate, beat his head repeatedly with the thick, gold-tipped cane. Sumner, who was trapped under a heavy desk that was bolted to the floor could not escape and was left bloodied and almost dead. It took three years for Sumner to recuperate and return to his Senate duties, and he never fully recovered from the beating.
Representative Preston Brooks (S.C.) 
After the beating, South Carolinian constituents sent Representative Brooks many brand new canes, one of them bearing the phrase “Hit him again.” Brooks claimed that people wanted pieces of the cane as “holy relics”.
Dinner celebrations in honor of Preston Brooks’ attack on Charles Sumner were held all over the South, a mid-nineteenth century version of the media attention now being attracted by Rep. Joe Wilson.
Commemorative Sign to Brooks’ attack
The Crime Against Kansas
Here is the text of Charles Sumner’s speech, known as “The Crime Against Kansas” for which he received a near-death beating by a South Carolinian pro-slavery zealot. After his beating, Sumner’s speech was widely disseminated, furthering the anti-slavery movement in the United States and eventually resulting in freedom from slavery for Afro-Americans.
http://www.iath.virginia.edu/seminar/unit4/sumner.html
Brooksville, Florida is named after Rep. Preston Brooks.
The city of Brooksville, Florida is named in Brooks’ honor. What is so interesting about this is that the city is not at all ashamed of its association with the attack on Charles Sumner. This is what the Brooksville, Florida website www.ci.brooksville.fl.us has this to say about Brooks and the Sumner beating in the Senate:
Brooksville is about forty-five miles north of Tampa and is nestled among beautiful, rolling hills. It has experienced continuous growth while preserving its original charm. It has three city parks, a nine-hole golf course, and an excellent library. Brooksville and Hernando County are rich in southern hospitality, motivated by visions of tomorrow.
Brooksville was named in honor of Rep. Preston Brooks of South Carolina because of the role he played in a “drama” that took place in the legislative chamber of the U.S. Congress. “State Right’s statesman Representative Preston Brooks was a man with a strong sense of fair play”. “Representative Brooks whipped out his newly polished gutta percha cane, and rapped it smartly over Sumner’s head, leaving the Senator quite senseless on the spotless Senate floor.” (According to contemporary reports, there was blood all over the floor from the attack, and Sumner could not see because of his blood around his head and in his eyes.)
“The citizens of Hernado Country admired [Brooks’] pluck and voted to give the country’s largest settlement his name.” This is on the present-day (2009) City of Brookville website.
Brooks County, Georgia is mum about the association.
Brooks County, Georgia (www.brookscounty.georgia.gov) , also named after Preston Brooks, is more circumspect about its connection with Preston Brooks, and just refers to its civil war history as being the “breadbasket” of the South. In 2000, the U.S. census indicated that Brooks County was 39% Afro-American.
“You Lie!”
So the next time you hear the phrase “You Lie” (which you will many times from now on), think of United States history and the connection between incivility, southern hospitality, visions of tomorrow, and the attack on a man whose crime was to say that slavery in the United States should be extinguished. When Rep. Joe Wilson is admired for his “pluck”, think of Charles Sumner’s life and works and not Brooks’ attack with a cane. The distinction and the analogy to present-day politics is clear.
