HOME / explainer: Answers to your questions about the news.

Can Rupert Murdoch Make Women Stay Married?

Bruce GottliebPosted Wednesday, Feb. 16, 2000, at 11:40 AM ET

Last night, the Fox network broadcast a special called Who Wants To Marry a Multi-Millionaire? The program showcased 50 women competing for the right to marry a "mystery mogul" about whom they knew nothing except that he is worth $8 million and isn't in the computer business. (This last was apparently a common concern among contestants.) It turned out he is a handsome fortysomething who deals in Southern California real estate.

RSS

Fox billed the extravaganza as "The One Vegas Wedding No One Will Regret In The Morning!" But what if one of the parties does regret it?

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the contestant who wakes up in a Las Vegas hotel next to the world's only handsome multimillionaire who needed the resources of the Fox network to find himself a wife, finds herself dissatisfied with the arrangement. Or that the "mystery mogul" whose wife married him just for the money begins to worry that she married him just for the money. Can they get divorced tomorrow?

Fox lawyers aren't saying what was in the contracts the participants in this exercise were required to sign. But could Fox require them to stay married for some decent interval?

Answer: almost certainly not. When it comes to things like marriage, courts almost never require people to do what they promised. Actually forcing a person to perform on a "personal services contract" this serious is held to be tantamount to slavery, which is banned under the Constitution. Fox might be able to sue for damages, if it could prove their refusal to continue the marriage had cost the network in some way. But even a substantial penalty clause is usually held to be constitutionally unenforceable.

Moreover, courts will not enforce contracts that they deem "against public policy." For instance, Mary Beth Whitehead was not required to give up Baby M, even though she promised to do so, since encouraging the mother-child bond is public policy in New Jersey. Explainer is pretty sure that even Nevada courts would find Who Wants To Marry a Multi-Millionaire? to be against public policy.

Fox could probably enforce a clause requiring the regretful winner to give back jewels and gifts she was given by the show. But if her husband's $8 million isn't enough to keep her interested, a few baubles probably aren't going to change her mind.

The show was actually taped one week ago, and Fox executives assure reporters that the winning lady and the mystery man are still together so far, enjoying their honeymoon.

E-MAIL

RECOMMEND... Get Slate RSS Feeds

Bruce Gottlieb is a law student and a former Slate staff writer.

COMMENTS

Highlights from The Fray:

When you think about it, Fox had to pay all 50, and only one of them lost.

--Amazed...

(To reply, click here.)

(Amazed also asked

So someone watched this show?

The evidence from The Fray is that EVERYONE did.)

Can SHE sue Fox if he turns out to have less than $8 million dollars? If he turns out to be an ax murderer?

--M west

(To reply, click here.)

Maybe the shopping channel should pick up on this concept.

-- John Donato

(To reply, click here.)

The random events in the real-world dating scene are not too far from the selection process in this pageantry. In the end, I could only wish the couple a happy (if not lucky) ending. The legal obligations of a marriage contract will never keep a couple living together. So, why would Fox network attempt to keep up a failed marriage? Better for them to just let those marriages quietly (and privately) end. Bring on a Bachelorette multi-millionaire!

--amused

(To reply, click here.)

I believe that either the groom or the bride could annul the marriage. Either party could end the marriage without consent of the other. Apparently, all the women had to sign pre-nups which guaranteed that they get nothing from the guy should they divorce.

--Rob

(To reply, click here.)
(2/16)

Arranged marriages are the norm in several other parts of the world. Seems to work at least as good as here for those billions of people. Why not these two?

--Glenn Littell

(To reply, click here.)

Have we finally come full circle--merging the two oldest trades? We started this country with legalized slave trades and prostitution. Abolished the practices later on. Only to bring both back 150+ years later, dressed in sequins, and on TV! I guess it was the sequins that make it morally acceptable.

It was their choice to make. Unfortunately, it was our choice to watch. I wish them the best (hope they do not have kids in the near future!) The fact that many Americans watched is demoralizing. Worse, the fact that I watched at all will keep me awake for weeks wondering if I am a hypocrite. Leave it to Fox to bring out the worst in all of us...

--Jello

(To reply, click here.)

(2/17)

What did you think of this article?

Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum

POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES